Posted on 09/26/2006 9:14:04 AM PDT by aculeus
I've had malaria many times. The disease killed my son, two sisters and four cousins. Every year, it infects 400 million Africans and kills up to 1 million of our children.
Even at only $1,000 per life (and surely our lives are worth far more than that), malaria costs Africa $1 billion annually. We also lose millions of working days, billions spent on medicines and hospital visits, and billions because tourists and foreign investment don't come to our countries.
But finally there is hope that we can stop this death and devastation - provided we can move past old biases about a lifesaving pesticide called DDT. Yes, I'm referring to the DDT you've heard so many terrible things about - that it poisons the environment and endangers human health. It happens to be one of the keys to saving countless African lives.
Sprayed just twice a year on the inside walls of homes, DDT keeps 90% of mosquitoes from even entering. It irritates those mosquitoes that do come in, so they don't bite, and kills any that land. No other chemical does all that. And as used in public health programs, it's perfectly safe - for people and the environment.
That's how DDT reduced malaria by 75% in many areas, enabling doctors to use the new ACT drugs to treat the much smaller numbers of people who still get sick. By using DDT and the drugs together, South Africa cut its malaria rates by 95% in three years.
So using the pesticide would be a no-brainer, right? Wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Rachel Carson is the greatest mass murder of all times. Stalin and Chengis Khan are probably sort of tied at second with about a third of Rachel's numbers and Hitler is a very poor third.
But what about the birds that might be harmed? A bird is certainly valuable, isn't it?
The failure to use DDT, among other things, is a criminal misuse of science.
Good article.Yrs ago the msm claimed DDT was responsible for everything from environmental destruction to birth defects.Of course that was a "simpler" time when i was inclined to believe what the taliking heads on the evening news told me.Is it safe?Any ideas?
Environmental Wackos are responsible for each of these deaths.
DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!!
The only criticism I have, is that I'd add Mao to that list, probably in second. That latest biography put his death count at @70 million.
Owl_Eagle
If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.
"Stalin and Chengis Khan are probably sort of tied at second with about a third of Rachel's numbers and Hitler is a very poor third."
From http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM
Mao (China) 77 million
Stalin (USSR) 62 million
Mongols (GK) 39.9 million
Hitler 21 million
Why not just use mosquito netting?
So you think people should go through their daily lives draped in mosquito netting? Would you want to do that instead of simply killing the little bloodsuckers?
Funny how malaria was almost completely eradicated in the United States BEFORE the introduction of DDT, and did not return after DDT was banned. Sorry, but Africa's health problems have very deep roots, and DDT will make very little difference. Fewer people will die of malaria, but they'll just die prematurely of something else instead.
Malaria by itself is rarely fatal. It's the combination of malaria and other diseases and malnutrition that makes it so frequently fatal in Africa. A malnourished baby with AIDS is likely to die from malaria, but the alternative is survive just long enough to transmit AIDS to other adults or their own babies, and then die. I had malaria twice as a preschooler living in Rwanda, while my father worked at the US Embassy there. I'm none the worse for wear, and didn't get any medical treatment that wasn't locally available (unlike my tonsillectomy, which required flying out to Germany).
Conservatives shouldn't be so hasty to embrace knee-jerk reactions to anything leftists oppose. Just because leftists greatly exaggerate the harmful effects of DDT on wildlife, doesn't mean that we should eagerly support having our tax dollars poured down yet another bottomless pit in the name of "helping Africa".
Mite find something else to spray,,"In The House" !!
Friend of mine (white guy in Nam) caught malaria once, and told me it totally redefines the whole idea of what being sick is about. Banning DDT was criminal.
Funny, but I didn't see ONE WORD in the article suggest pouring out more tax dollars "in the name of "helping Africa"".
And just maybe, not having so many people with their systems weakened by malaria will help them get a handle on some of the other problems.
One question for you: What the hell makes you think these people who are being killed by malaria would not have thought of using mosquito netting if that was all it takes to protect themselves from malaria?
There are two types of malaria, which I see you fail to mention, one kills quite easily and the other usually doesn't. You obviously had the milder form. DDT is necessary and is not as harmful or as deadly as the left has made it sound for all these years.
This not only is true of DDT but of most of the other idiotic ideas the left puts out to deprive us of freedom under the name of conservation.
BTW, I don't see where the US is going to give money to these people for DDT, I read that the ban is being lifted. Please point me to any source regarding the US funding Africa for DDT use. Thanks and have a nice day.
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.