48 Comments
- bryano, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Worried about large mosquito populations spreading malaria? Let third world countries use DDT without having their foreign aid withdrawn. DDT was used to great effect in the 1940-50s but was suggested (wrongly) to be carcinogenic later on, leading to its ban in developed countries.
- shankrabbit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12WARNING: Living is bad for your health.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I suppose if you consider communicable disease an environmental hazard, probably most children that die in the world is due to an environmental hazard.
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6That was due to way over usage where they literally sprayed people with the stuff. You can use much less and be environmentally neutral and save millions of children's lives.
- Anrkist, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8This will sounds harsh, but given that we are curing more and more diseases everyday... there has to be population control of some kind. It sucks, but that's life. Sure, it would be great if the black death showed up again and nature did everything for us but we are so reliant on ourselves to do everything.
What bad things happen when there is over population? Famine comes to mind. - jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3DDT's ban has been lifted thanks to the efforts of Clinton's foundation. Millions will probably survive and they don't need to use harmful levels for it to work because they found using just one tenth of the amount was just as effective and environmentally neutral.
- AmonAmarth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Wrong. In reality, DDT allows the mosquito population to flourish, as it compromises the lives of birds that prey on mosquitoes.
- addicted68098, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And arrogance,
- KingGorilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2what about condoms and birth control pills? Sex ed is important.
- CrumpetUp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2it may surprise you, but the leading cause of death for children under 5 is respiratory disease from fires burnt in the home to cook their food. some MIT professors are working very hard to come up with cleaner burning charcoals that the people can make themselves (using things like corn cobs and other veggie waste)... but i'm pretty sure that they're included in the 4 million.
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2hooray for ad-hominem arguments!
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2no it doesn't, only if you use the ridiculous levels used prior to the 1960s. Used properly, it doesn't affect the bird population at all.
- fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Life is hard. Wear a helmet.
- bryano, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2@danny
Environmental damage will not be very high on the list of things to worry about for a starving african family. They are far more likely to worry about getting something to eat, since not dying this week is probably more important to them than dying from a global ice age in 100 years - heaintheavy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Why, yes, that DOES sound harsh.
Oh, and famine is not a result of overpopulation. It is a result of poor government. There is more than enough food to feed the world's people.
If you are so worried about overpopulation, why not just kill yourself? You think it is fair to these kids that you are determining it is fine for them to die as long as you live? - Jerim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3So you are all for population control? I expect you to be first in line. Or did you just mean "everyone else?"
- hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1*****, you can die from drinking too much aqua!
- Muncher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Anybody remember Love Canal, New York? Citing Wikipedia, "A survey conducted by the Love Canal Homeowners Association found that 56% of the children born from 1974-1978 had a birth defect." It's really sad that this kind of stuff still happens.
- xOKxWhy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The only solution, stay inside!
- slapthemonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1^^lol.....but on serious note 4 million is something......
"For example if you look at lead exposure, the effect will be different if the child was exposed in utero because the lead of the mother goes into the bones of the child."
^^ yeah you haven't even taken birth and you know your grave is already dug..... - jorgepblank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In other news, Earth is to be made Child-Safe: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30359
- sol2006, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Along the lines of what Anrkist said, considering how far we've come since, say, the 1800s I don't think we're doing half bad. We can't cure everybody, but we all know that number could be a lot higher.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Me waits for the usual blame America, Bush, Cheney, Halliburton and so on......
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It's not just 3rd world countries that have these health problem. Just look at this clip from a documentary in New York City http://youtube.com/watch?v=DDF5JsYn2SI
- sensoukami, on 10/10/2007, -5/+51 am in ur bl00d, ki11ing ur ce11z
- fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The living part isn't so bad... it's the breathing part that wrecks you.
- dmcbride6, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I read chicken instead of children...I feel bad for laughing now.
- realclark, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1hazards like this? http://youtube.com/watch?v=n45msohAQxQ
- dannyapplesauce, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3No, that's kinda far down on my "to worry about" list. And DDT was linked to environmental damage including wildlife and trees.
- NeedleGuy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Malaria has killed more people in the history of the world than any other disease. Something as "simple" as a mosquito bite.
- Radionesiac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1no its not
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Evolution at work: socialism, decadent dictators, ***** marxist rebels, muzzmutt trash, = you get what you deserve degenerates.
The reward of the wicked is destruction.
And i like that in a vengeful, jealous God. - Pixelpaws, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0How can they prove that these deaths were a direct result of the environmental issues and that there were not extenuating factors? You can't.
- TwwIX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1ooooh, dem poor childuns
- knobtwiddler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1hah... and to think all this time the scientific community thought DDT was carcinogenic. good thing you set everyone straight!!
- Radionesiac, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1hahahaha diarrhea disease.
MOM IM SPRAYING ***** ALL OVER AHHH OMG *PPLLLLLRRRREEEAAAEEEERRGGGHHHH dies* - gondalia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Comment at the end of the article..
Somebody misquoted somebody, it's "at least 3 million" under the age of five, not 4 million children (without age limits that are probably higher than 5 in most people's eyes). See
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/924157237X_eng.pdf
PDF page 36 or labeled page 14, Section 2.4 of report.
I don't mean to sound insensitive, by the way. It's still a staggering number, but in reading it for myself, I found the error. The 4 million number is found on page 34 (labeled page 12 section 2.3), and refers to global burden of disease that is not all tied to environmental factors, and talks about 4 million not surviving the first month of birth.
In effect, the numbers are "almost" additive of 4 million not surviving 1st month and 3 million first five years due to environmental factors! - knobtwiddler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1really really gross.
good on toast.
*** ok thats not funny. digg down please, must be punished for making light of suffering of others :( - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1The earth is begining to be overpopulated anyway.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+04 million?? *****!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+04 million?? *****!
- Fascist, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Oh *****, we must take down those terrorists.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1who cares. just think how much PROFIT was made, its only humans, there are billions more of them.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2LOL diarrhea.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0thank god for population control.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I am the mighty "Enviro-Hazard"! You will bow before me!
- unpaidbill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0kill the children, save the food.
RIP GG - M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Fine I'll do it. "Will someone please think of the children?!"


What is Digg?