Skip to comments.BRING BACK DDT (Michelle Malkin showcases articles from four thoughtful advocates)
Posted on 01/08/2005 10:39:34 AM PST by Stoat
BRING BACK DDT
By Michelle Malkin · January 08, 2005 11:02 AM
Bravo for New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who calls today for DDT to be sprayed in malaria-ravaged countries. Here's the intro:
If the U.S. wants to help people in tsunami-hit countries like Sri Lanka and Indonesia - not to mention other poor countries in Africa - there's one step that would cost us nothing and would save hundreds of thousands of lives.
Science journalist Mike Fumento, among many other rational, anti-junk science researchers on the opposite side of the aisle, has been arguing this for years. Fumento reported in a piece five days before Kristof's article was published:
Malaria and dengue fever, both carried by mosquitoes, are already endemic in many of the affected areas and disease levels could dramatically increase as they breed in the countless pools of stagnant water left behind by the waves. Mosquitoes that carry malaria come out at night, those that carry dengue by day. They thus kill around the clock.
Environmentalists have posed as saviors of the Earth and humanity. But behind their opposition to DDT lie darker motives. Dr. Walter Williams points out:
In Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today. More than 100,000 people died during malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s, following the suspension of DDT house spraying. After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu-Natal province skyrocketed from 8,000 to 42,000. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Now that DDT is being used again, the number of deaths from malaria in the region has dropped from 340 in 2000 to none at the last reporting in February 2003.
Yes, one really does wonder.
Good source for details:
The Skeptical Environmentalist
State of Fear
The umpteenth reason why the term "enviromentalist whacko" is a good one!
Bravo Michelle, for exposing the population control agenda. My grandmother sprayed her garden with DDT for years. She lived to 94.
Is there anything to the conspiracy theory that NOT spraying with DDT is an effort to control population in the poorest areas of the world?
Idiot Hollywood actors helped rid the world of DDT, didn't they? They have the death of millions on their hands.
Oh, and the reason your air conditioner works like crap too is because of the ban on Flourocarbons. This one is even easier to figure out- the patent on the best refrigerant in the world was running out- which would have cost the company BILLIONS - so guess who makes the next best (and much more corrosive) substitute.
This topic is recently coming up more often, and she and Mr. Kristof are to be applauded for supporting this entirely sensible idea.
Michelle hits the nail on the head. Thus, it is doubtful DDT will be used in the forseeable future.
A proven theory...!
>Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."
[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]<
I'll take her over that emaciated beanpole Ann Coulter any day of the week.
A quick look at leftist policies and beliefs shows that it's always been about keeping "undesirables" away. From bribing them to sit at home in their ghettos to abortion and outright purges, it's NIMBYism and eugenics at its finest.
It would be to allow DDT in malaria-ravaged countries.
How does the US stop Sri Lanka and other countries from spraying DDT?
I appreciate all of the thoughtful commentary! :-)
I am guessing that the reintroduction of DDT will be a non-starter for reasons brought forth by others, as well as:
The banning of DDT was one of the major foundations of the modern environmentalist movement....their Holy Grail, if you will. The ban emboldened the Left with an enhanced sense of power, and any attempt to reintroduce it will be fought like a drowning man fights for air.
The region affected by the Tsunami includes areas notorious for containing militant Islamists. They will seize upon this as 'chemical warfare' being directed against them and will use it as license to unleash biotoxins against the West (although they don't exactly need any additional rationale for this, such a move would give them political cover among their less-radical constituency)
Millions will sicken and die needlessly as a result.
May God help us all....
[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
A well received book, apparently:
Do these countries even have stockpiles of DDT, or even the means by which to disperse it on such a massive scale? Once again, only the US has the means to get such a meaningful thing done. Sadly, I believe that it will once again be thwarted due entirely to irrelevant political reasons rather than any sound scientific ones.
So confuse them by revealing the infidel plot to suppress DDT spraying.
After all, Muslims invented DDT.
ROTFL! Good plan :-)
I'll guess that the countries' own western-educated elites suppress its use.
Or foreign aid depends on banning DDT.
In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a book that falsely alleged that DDT was causing great harm to humans, beneficial animals, and the environment. The hysteria generated by Carson and her disciples forced bans on DDT that have resulted in hundreds of millions of human deaths and human suffering beyond the ability of statistics to reveal.
The campaign Carson launched hit hard at the war on malaria, causing it to falter. In 1967, the World Health Organization changed its goal from worldwide "eradication" of malaria to "control of the disease, where possible." Some 63 participating countries, which had already spent considerable sums on the fight, simply gave up the battle.
A resolution was approved by a large number of concerned scientists at the 22nd session of the WHO Assembly in Southeast Asia in 1969 urging manufacturers of DDT to "continue producing the life-saving insecticide so that they could continue to protect citizens from malaria." A ban on the production of DDT in the United States, they said, would deny the use of DDT to most of the malarious areas of the world. The direct result of such a denial would be "to bring down upon the afflicted countries hundreds of millions of cases of malaria, and millions of human deaths from malaria within the next decade."
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Killer.html - An info-rich article by:
Gordon Edwards, professor emeritus of entomology at San Jose State University in California, has taught biology and entomology there for 44 years. He is a long-time member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society and is a lifetime fellow of the California Academy of Sciences. He is the author of several ornithological articles published by the Audubon Society and other environmental groups.
The eradication program ended not because of any environmental concerns, but because it did not work. The mosquitoes had grown resistant to insecticides, and the microorganisms that cause malaria had become resistant to the drugs used against them. In many areas the numbers of cases of malaria greatly exceeded what it was before the effort was started. If events had been different, if DDT had not been used heavily in agriculture and there was no shortage of funds the outcome might have been different. Malaria might have joined smallpox as a disease that had been eliminated from the face of the earth. Unfortunately, such was not the case. As early as 1967 it was clear that the effort had failed, and in 1972 the official policy shifted from eradication to control of malaria.
Here's another great article on this subject, http://www.juntosociety.com/monty/mrwnv.html
The easily found evidence for worldwide outbreaks post-spraying are widely available and the newer methods of "control" are ineffective wherever they are used.
Don't think I am speaking with the voice of compassion here but only to ask if you have more data you might like to share or are you just Googling?
"Resistance" may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/physiological mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas where DDT has been applied -- this still reduces mosquito-human contact. "This avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raise serious questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of malaria."
[See, e.g., J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1998 Dec;14(4):410-20; and Am J Trop Med Hyg 1994;50(6 Suppl):21-34]
I believe a great deal of reliance on the work of C&W was due to policy rather than science and we all know how politicians are loathe to admit mistake.
I'd thought about the "Sons of Silent Spring" getting hysterical, but not about the Muslim radicals. Good point.
The saddest aspect of this tragedy may be that making things right isn't that complicated or expensive. We have the means and the know-how. What's missing is the political will. HIV infections are a fraction of malaria's, but the former affects more people in the West, where advocates see to it that foreign aid budgets keep AIDS front and center. Third World victims of malaria don't have lobbyists and Hollywood A-listers calling attention to their situation.
But the bigger problem is the politicized international health agencies that discourage the employment of all available tools of prevention -- specifically insecticides containing DDT that is anathema to environmentalists. Bed nets and preventive medicines play important roles, but spraying homes with pesticides is vital. Use of DDT, developed during World War II and the main reason that America and Europe no longer harbor malarial mosquitoes, has been most successful in containing the disease. Still, influential groups like the U.S. Agency for International Development want DDT left out of malaria-control efforts.
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas noted the hypocrisy of this position at a subcommittee hearing in October. AID "refuses to support and endorse the use of insecticides," said the Senator, "even when used in small amounts -- much smaller than the mass, airborne spraying that the U.S. implemented to eliminate its own malaria problem decades ago."
This ideological opposition to synthetic chemicals has no basis in science -- there is no evidence that the pesticide harms humans or causes widespread damage to nature -- but it amounts to a death sentence for millions of African women and children. When South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996 at the urging of environmentalists, malaria cases rose from 6,000 in 1995 to 60,000 in 2000. DDT use resumed in 2000 in the country's worst-hit province, KwaZulu Natal, and malaria cases fell by nearly 80% by 2001. Zambia, one of Africa's poorest countries, also saw a tremendous drop in malaria cases when insecticide-spraying was reintroduced four years ago. Today, DDT is protecting a Zambian population of 360,000 at a cost of about $6 per household.
Ironic. AIDS drugs have tremendous proven negative side-effects but no one says don't use them because they are dangerous. Even if one believes DDT (not proven)has harmful effects the alternative is clearly worse. Kudos to Sen Brownback who once again seems to be the leading voice of sensible caring in the US Congress.
I wouldn't doubt it since the envirowackos view humans as mere pests on the earth.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
For those of us old enough to remember, we saw newsreels of concentration camp survivors being "dusted" with DDT. I haven't heard of any of them dying from it.
Just Googling until Freepers with some knowledge, like you, showed up.
Without doubt, the insecticide and pharmaceutical industries have received direct benefits from DDT elimination. The former industry has benefited because countries purchased more expensive insecticides and the latter benefited from selling more drugs to treat an ever-increasing number of malaria cases.