Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: aculeus; P-40; tomzz; Citizen Tom Paine; Thombo2; AlaskaErik; Brad Cloven; Owl_Eagle; ...

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".


12 posted on 09/26/2006 10:45:08 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: GovernmentShrinker

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.


16 posted on 09/26/2006 11:44:27 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker
"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"."

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.

17 posted on 09/26/2006 11:52:51 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Funny how malaria was decreased by 95 percent in South Africa by the use of DDT. In America we drained swamps and did other aggressive things to kill the mosquitos. We also used DDT to good effect when it came out. Malaria was never a big problem in the USA to begin with.

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.

19 posted on 09/26/2006 12:08:04 PM PDT by calex59 (Hillary Clinton is dumber than a one eyed monkey with a brain tumor(credit to Harley69))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson