<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Study suggests link between DDT exposure and breast cancer]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by envirostats</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/ddt4/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:35:14 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/ddt4/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>was the DDT exposure in conditions of overuse?</strong></p><p>The article had a sentence or so about how statistically weak this study was with such a small testing group. Why the article was so large and did not have this as a clear forewarning I don't know but in journalism school, they teach you to put the important things first, not buried in the middle.</p><p>
The article also missed a key point, which the study author should have responsibly pointed out rather than blaming the journalists here. What was the concentration being used compared to the recommended concentrations? </p><p>
Much of the developed world's problem with DDT came from overuse, not proper use. DDT is, by no means, safe, but when you abuse anything, right up to alcohol, no good will come of it. I'd bet the subjects were in conditions of overuse exposures just on the odds of overuse prevalence alone. But if not, they'd have to mention this to clarify the issue so people can start properly understanding the issue.<br>
</br></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>was the DDT exposure in conditions of overuse?</strong></p><p>The article had a sentence or so about how statistically weak this study was with such a small testing group. Why the article was so large and did not have this as a clear forewarning I don't know but in journalism school, they teach you to put the important things first, not buried in the middle.</p><p>
The article also missed a key point, which the study author should have responsibly pointed out rather than blaming the journalists here. What was the concentration being used compared to the recommended concentrations? </p><p>
Much of the developed world's problem with DDT came from overuse, not proper use. DDT is, by no means, safe, but when you abuse anything, right up to alcohol, no good will come of it. I'd bet the subjects were in conditions of overuse exposures just on the odds of overuse prevalence alone. But if not, they'd have to mention this to clarify the issue so people can start properly understanding the issue.<br>
</br></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>