Posted on 08/16/2005 12:14:07 PM PDT by NYer
"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 And they won't allow it because of a combination of outdated science and pseudo-science, coupled with a truly breathtaking faux morality.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.