[xenophiles]

So you think people should go through their daily lives draped in mosquito netting?

No. Read the article again-- we're discussing how to suppress malaria by ridding houses of mosquitoes. (Human beings are mostly diurnal, Anopheles are not.)

Would you want to do that instead of simply killing the little bloodsuckers?

Because it's simpler, cheaper, easier to verify and doesn't lead to insecticide resistance, dependence on foreign chemical industry or uneasiness in trade partners.

[calex59]

People would have to go around in their houses' draped in netting. They don't just bite after people go to bed. Insects don't build up a resistance to DDT, they just die. Saying they will build up a resistance to DDT is like saying ebola will build up a resistance to bleach, which will never happen. Not using DDT to kill insects, particularly mosquitos, over the last 40 years has led to the death of millions of people.

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?

[Nathan Zachary]

"Because it's simpler, cheaper, easier to verify and doesn't lead to insecticide resistance, dependence on foreign chemical industry or uneasiness in trade partners."

No, it's simpler, cheaper (cost of lives) And easier to use an insecticide such a DDT and larvasides to eradicate the disease.

These are not things that have to be done continuously, they are short term applications over a period of 2-3 years.

It takes much longer than that for any resistance (which isn't likely) to develop.

Careful monitoring after initial eradication would restrict future DDT use, and keep it down to local outbreak applications.