Posted on 08/16/2005 12:14:07 PM PDT by NYer
August 15, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Communism and fascism, as horrifically bloody as their legacy has been, have a lesser death count attributed to them than the misguided worldwide ban on DDT enforced by the World Health Organization, international aid organizations and others. So reports John Jalsevac in the LifeSiteNews.com Special Report, Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide.
Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, decrying the supposedly great harm caused by all pesticides to the natural environment and humans was released in 1962 and eventually led to the ban on DDT, still the most effective, cheapest, and arguably the cleanest way to stop the spread of deadly malaria. Jalsevac reveals what has now been proven to be junk science in Carson’s claims and the far less than altruistic motives of those who continue to enforce the unjustified ban on the use of life-saving DDT.
This report is a must read for students, environmental enthusiasts, social justice advocates and most of the rest of the world that has been falsely led to believe that the banning of DDT has been a good and necessary measure. On the contrary, as this special report reveals, it has been a disaster and we owe it to the people of impoverished, Third World nations to correct this injustice with haste.
Subsections in Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide are titled:
1. The Worst Crime of the 20th Century
2. The Tragic History Of DDT and Silent Spring
3. Rachel Carson’s Allegations Disproved
4. The DDT Ban Put In Perspective
5. Why Does the DDT Ban Continue?
6. DDT and Population Control
See the complete LifeSiteNews.com Special Report
Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/050816a.html HTML version
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005_docs/DDTworstcrim... Acrobat Version
hey, their intentions were good. Who cares if science wasn't on their side???
As if they care!
They want to reduce human population.
Quoting from the latter:
" Malaria is a major, ongoing disease problem in much of the developing world. Increases in the incidence of the disease have occurred for complex reasons. Reduced insecticide usage is one, but others include the resistance to treatment in both the parasite and the mosquito vectors, changes in land use that have provided new mosquito habitat, and the movement of people into new, high-risk areas."
"Most nations where malaria is a problem, and most health professionals working in the field of malaria control, support the targeted use of DDT, as part of the tool kit for malaria control. Most also agree that more cost-effective, less environmentally persistent alternatives are needed. There are some effective alternative chemicals for the control of adult mosquitoes, but preventing their further development is lack of invest ment by industry, because malaria is largely a disease of the poor."
"Malaria is responsible for enormous suffering and death. The facts are readily available in the scientific literature. To blame a reduction in DDT usage for the death of 10-30 million people from malaria is not just simple-minded, it is demonstrably wrong. To blame a mythical, monolithic entity called the environmental lobby for the total reduction in DDT usage is not just paranoid, it is also demonstrably wrong."
God gave us the scientists and skills to make DDT. There was a time when people came before nature. Anti-God elements took the God-given tools away by false claims and misguided methods.
Its time some sense returns.
Thanks.
Liberalism and it's deadly sisters, communism and socialism are the deadliest scourages to ever infect the planet. 46 million aborted babies, 55 million dead from malaria, 100 million dead after their "gun control" schemes. Who besides God knows the actual number that have died from their selfish and deliberate stupidity.
PING, for later!
The case against ddt was that it made the shells bird eggs very thin which cause the little birdies to die prematurally. But 30 years later along comes West Nile virus, which is spead by those pesky misquitoes. The misquetoes kill the birds before they even get a chance to lay the eggs. Since birds eat insects incuding miquitoes and there aren't many birds now, the population of the miquitoes continue to grow as the bird population dwindles.
Sorry, that letter is BS
"support the targeted use of DDT"
Yeah, except using 'targeted' DDT in africa is like painting the siding on one house in detroit. It's a bigger problem than being politically correct can solve.
There is little reason to use DDT in a limited (the real translation of targeted) way. It is cheap and effective. Refusing to use it because of BS 'environmental concerns' will just kill more people.
But hey, since they're just those pesky "dark people" from africa, who really gives a damn, eh?
what is happening to the bird population then?
While I think the DDT ban cost millions of lives, communism cost over 100 M lives (probably less than 200 M lives).
Communism was (and is) really, really bad.
Truth be told, I wouldn't mind several drums of DDT to use on the neighbors property, it's a ditch with fricken huge mosquito's in it...the little turds bite me daily...
You are overlooking the fact that using it "promiscuously" (such as the noted use on agricultural crops) rapidly results in mosquito resistance to DDT.
In the United States.
Donor agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development have pressured Belize, Bolivia and Mozambique not to use DDT — or risk losing their aid money, adds Bate.
This is partially true, and partially wrong. Most of the pressure was aimed at stopping aerial spraying campaigns, and one of the main reasons to do that was to reduce the occurrence of resistance. However, malaria funding has focused on medicines for active malaria cases and not as much on prevention efforts, and they aren't funding DDT programs for indoor and wall spraying, which is effective. This may be due to environmental concerns in the U.S. -- it's clearly a factor for European aid agencies. I agree with the position that the aid programs should include funding for indoor spraying campaigns. So, apparently, does the World Health Organization:
Excellent article; thanks for posting it!
You need to do a little more research. And possibly involve non-ninny, objective DDT supporters in your reading material.
Broad application results in resistance to DDT (after killing off for REALLY cheap) but it also results in mosquitos who are resistant AVOIDING sprayed areas.
You make the call. A 'scary' application of DDT that harms nothing except mosquitos, or politically correct application of less-than effective, more expensive pesticides that result in more people dying.
For some reason, I think you'd favor the 'more people dying' approach. Does that make you feel better, or just more superior that you fall for junk science???
Oh yeah, post from a site that hates Lomborg the eco-skeptic, that's the ticket ... apparently, banning DDT was a great environmental activism triumph but had zero impact on actual DDT use ... huh??? Gimme a break...
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
... and ...
http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn120100.htm
The World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and 250 other environmental groups will advocate the insecticide DDT be banned at next week’s United Nations Environment Programme meeting in Johannesburg. The meeting’s aim is a treaty banning or restricting so-called persistent organic chemicals (POPs).
...
The WWF’s chicanery doesn’t end with the science. Publicly, the WWF claims it backed off the demand of a DDT ban by 2007 in favor of regulatory controls. Don’t be fooled.
The would-be controls are so onerous and costly for the third world that they would operate as a de facto ban. Of the 23 countries using DDT, only 9 countries so far asked for exemptions under the impending treaty. The others either have stockpiled DDT in advance or have been scared off by the burdensome regulatory scheme, according to Roger Bate of FightingMalaria.org.
Donor agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development have pressured Belize, Bolivia and Mozambique not to use DDT — or risk losing their aid money, adds Bate.
The AID’s blackmail is eerily similar to its 1970s view that the failure of the Global Malaria Eradication Program (1956-1969) was a blessing in disguise. “Better off dead than riotously reproducing,” an AID official said.
"Most of the pressure was aimed at stopping aerial spraying campaigns"
Un-necessary and un-warranted pressure.
The letter you cited claimed:
"DDT is not used for outdoor mosquito control, partly because scientific studies have demonstrated toxicity to wildlife,"
... yet many of the claims from eco-extremists on DDTs effects have been punctured. This includes the phony "Silent Spring" claims.
More on how western donors are behind the drop-off in DDT use ... itself spwaned by the incorrect banning of DDT in the US, itself a product of evinornmental movement agitation. I think the line from environamentalism to deaths in Africa can be made.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/ddt_vs_death.htm
"... South Africa is beating the disease with a simple remedy: spraying the inside walls of houses in affected regions once a year. ... [S]prayed in tiny quantities inside houses - the only way anyone proposes to use it today - DDT is most likely not harmful to people or the environment. Certainly, the possible harm from DDT is vastly outweighed by its ability to save children's lives."
So, why is DDT not being used in this benign manner, let alone more aggressively against malarial mosquito breeding areas? The answer: Wealthy Western funders won't allow it. And they won't allow it because of a combination of outdated science and pseudo-science, coupled with a truly breathtaking faux morality.
Ms. Rosenberg notes "wealthy countries' fear of a double standard" and quotes E. Anne Peterson, assistant administrator for global health at the U.S. Agency for International Development:
"For us to be buying and using in another country something we don't allow in our own country raises the specter of preferential treatment. We certainly have to think about 'What would the American people think and want?' and 'What would Africans think if we're going to do to them what we wouldn't do to our own people?'"
What would Americans want? If millions of Americans were dying from malaria, we'd be spraying DDT furiously.
They support stockholm convention that says nobody should be producing or using DDT except those that notify the Secrtariat of their use, and they cant use it all all except through WHO guidelines, and they cant use it when 'safe' alternatives exist.
The Convention is all about eliminating DDT use, no question. It's a VERY restrictive global regulation.
WHO is merely saying that they can continue using DDT indoors for the time being.
As for recommending indoor use only for DDT, last I checked, mosquitos natural habitat was outdoors, and the best defense is a good offense.
Where do you get that information from?
For some reason, I think you'd favor the 'more people dying' approach. Does that make you feel better, or just more superior that you fall for junk science???
If you'd read all that I wrote, I noted that I think the aid programs should fund indooor and wall spraying programs, and apparently they aren't doing so due to environmental concerns. Does that sound like I favor more people dying, or do you just like making unsupported accusations?
The main reason for stopping, or trying to stop, aerial spraying programs was to reduce the occurrence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes. This is pretty clear in the literature.
"The United States all but eradicated malaria in the 1950s with drugs and the pesticide DDT. But in tropical Africa, where the parasite is widespread and mosquitoes can breed in a cow's footprint, malaria remains entrenched. The death rate has increased over the last few decades as the parasite became resistant to once highly effective drugs. DDT, banned in the U.S. for harming the environment, is still used in limited circumstances as a house spray, but it is not the miracle worker some suggest it could be if only Western aid groups would get behind it."
"Today's weapon of choice in the war on malaria is a net treated with a biodegradable pyrethroid insecticide. The net works not so much because it forms a foolproof barrier against mosquitoes — it doesn't — but because the insecticide kills the bugs. The most astounding results come when treated nets multiply across a village. When net use reaches a tipping point of about 60% of households, they kill enough mosquitoes that the protective benefits extend even to the households without nets. The Roll Back Malaria Partnership, an alliance of aid agencies and African nations that aims to halve malaria deaths by 2010, set a goal of getting 60% of pregnant women and young children to sleep under insecticide-treated nets."
The rest of the article is an interesting read, describing a number of pertinent issues for this topic.
"Where do you get that information from?"
IIRC, junkscience.com.
I do research before I post something. I don't just copy and paste the opinions of lefty scientists as fact.
Oh boy, the LA times! A rock solid base of objective journalism there!!!!
You want the truth? John stossel did a special on the environment and how the net and limited spraying don't work. You and the people you quote can give conditions how a combination of this and that can be effective, but the truth is PEOPLE ARE STILL DYING!!!!
And here's the bottom line, in caps for emphasis:
NOTHING WORKS AS WELL IN A COST EFFECTIVE MANNER THAN DDT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.