Good source for details:
www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
Also;
The Skeptical Environmentalist
Bjorn Lomborg
State of Fear
Michael Crichton
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.
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....
Here's another great article on this subject, http://www.juntosociety.com/monty/mrwnv.html
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.
http://www.fightingmalaria.org/news.php
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.
ProLife Ping!
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.