Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Banned DDT, Killed Millions
They banned DDT because it MIGHT kill 100 or so people a year if they were careless in applying it. So Malaria, which was almost completely eradicated all over the world, came back with a vengeance, and killed millions of people. Which is the worst catastrophe? DDT or Malaria? "Given the devastating humanitarian and economic costs of malaria, you might expect the international community to be fighting the disease with all its might. But instead, the world's politicians are trying to force developing countries to abandon their best weapon in the fight against malaria -- the pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). The United Nations (UN) is even promoting a treaty that might completely ban the use of DDT across the globe." Who cares if it kills millions? Using it might kill 100 or so a year! (Conservative Monitor, 5/2000)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Malaria wasn't close to being eradicated when spraying of DDT was stopped due to its ineffectiveness in the 1960s. It wasn't banned for any use until 1971, not banned in the U.S. until 1972, and it has never been banned for use against mosquitoes carrying malaria.
Don't buy your facts at discount prices. Discount facts often are defective.
The treaty you're talking about, by the way, was ratified a couple of years ago. It has a specific exemption for DDT when used in public health campaigns.
Come on over to Millard Fillmore's Bathtub and drink your fill of facts about DDT and malaria. We need to do more to fight malaria, but DDT isn't much of an answer, and often will only make things worse.
You can refuse to accept the facts all you want, but DDT DID almost eliminate malaria, and since it was banned, millions have died. Those are facts, not opinions. It was NOT banned because of "ineffectiveness."
Please tell me the nations where DDT almost eliminated malaria -- and as a special treat, list those SubSaharan nations where malaria rates were reduced by DDT, tell how low the rates were when spraying was stopped, and what year spraying was stopped.
DDT has never been banned for use against malaria, by the way. In Mexico, for example, DDT has been in constant use against malaria since 1946. Mexico still has malaria . . . how do you explain that?
You will probably discount this report out of hand because it comes from a "right-wing source." But is contains most of what you asked for. Discounting it tells me more about you than me. Here is the URL: http://www.conservativemonitor.com/news/2001017.shtml
The main reason Mexico still has malaria despite use of DDT (which is frowned upon by most large countries) is because it is a poor country and does not spray in outlying areas where the poorest live.
Mexico's malaria rate started dropping two years ago when they adopted the WHO- and Wellcome Trust-approved program of integrated pest management. Mexico did spray broadcast, which is a key reason the program failed -- it bred resistant mosquitoes.
The point remains: Unless you're arguing CURRENT POLICY and RACHEL CARSON'S RECOMMENDATIONS, you're arguing to let malaria rage.
Of course I dismiss that citation you give. DuPlantier does nothing new himself, but instead listens to the tobacco-lobbyist, anti-green guys who lied before.
Bate is a shill for the tobacco industry, and CEI is a front organization with no agenda other than saying bad things about environmentalists and environmental protection. Literally, they appear not to care what crazy, damaging things they say, so long as they get an insult in to environmentalists.
So now I wonder, do you have a clue what it is you want to have changed? Are you arguing to spray poison all over outdoors? Or are you arguing for current policy?
Do you even know?
See this report:
http://malaria.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD023871.html
And this one:
http://malaria.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD023870.html
Post a Comment