But we are being shortsighted as well if we think DDT is a magic solution to the problem. It may be part of the solution, but ONLY a part. Unless health officials deal with the resistance aspects of both the vector and the microbe it will result in MORE deaths, not less.
Case in point, look at malaria in India. Since India started using DDT, malaria rates initially declines, but soon returned with a vengeance. And they used DDT as part of a program of vaccinations and pesticides. Malaria is now an endemic disease in the Indian subcontinent, with the most common vectors of the microbe now resistant to DDT and several other families of more advanced pesticides. Take a look here.
http://www.brown.edu/Research/EnvStudies_Theses/full9900/creid/malaria_in_india.htm
Not yet, and only because the environmentalists haven't been able to push it through, which is what I meant. I didn't say it is banned world-wide.
So, what is the point of all you've said? There are problems with everything, nothing is perfect, men do have to use the best judgement of which they are capaable in the use of anything. If they do not, there are bad consequences, like the stupid banning of DDT that allows millions to die every year.
Should people be careful how they use things? Of course. Should governments be the one's to decide what can be used, and by whom, and when? Certainly not!
When free people make mistakes, there are sometimes problems, and they can be corrected. When governments makes mistakes, the problems are disasters forced of people who have no recourse and no means to correct the problems.
Hank