Posted on 12/14/2005 8:10:27 AM PST by SusanD
Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."
[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
(Excerpt) Read more at junkscience.com ...
Yep. If you read more about DDT you will find that many things cause eggshell thinning but DDT is not one of them. There are MANY enviomental whackos who view humans as a plague on the earth and want to see people die off in large numbers.
Seems to be someone who is pro-DDT referencing a an opinion by someone else without any reference to the quote hes referring too. The short snip "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing" isn't even a full sentence, there is no way to know who said it or what the context is.
I've said it for decades and people pooh pooh me but lowering population is the goal for environmentalists and Communists. It doesn't matter if its by starvation or Malaria, just as long as they die.
Or abortion.
The most recent Scientific American, which has been sliding leftward on environmental issues, actually praised DDT as a method to control mosquitos that spread malaria. It's sprayed in homes, not over large agricultural areas. Agricultural spraying is where the environmental concerns are the greatest, but home spraying takes very little. It's great against mosquitos because it is both a repellant and a pesticide. It keeps mosquitos away and it poisons those that don't. It also lasts twice as long as other pesticides and you only need a fraction of the amount.
One other point. DDT can be used by developing countires for control of malaria. The problem is that the donor nations tie strings to their funds to stop the use of DDT.
to read later
I have long not trusted the honesty of things coming from WHO..........but there are some stunning revelations regarding our own EPA in your link.
I think the count was approaching 50 million.
Holy Margaret Sanger, Batman!
Wonder if any of the Gates Foundation money buys DDT?
October 30, 2005
Gates Foundation Commits $258.3 Million for Malaria Research and Development
Funding to support R&D on a malaria vaccine, new drugs, and improved mosquito control methods
New report finds malaria R&D spending totals $323 million annually – far short of need
We generally think of malaria as a disease of the Third World, but there is a least one industrialized nation where it was in the past, and could become again, a serious problem. That nation is the United States of America.
Actually the UN declared that any nation that used DDT would lose any aid from it... this is why now more than 2 Million folks die of malaria around the world every year.. when not that long ago it was virtually irradicated from the planet.
India is a major producer and user of DDT.
While the news is filled with bird flu scare stories, every thirty seconds someone (usually a child) dies of Malaria. Oh well, they're just Third Worlders. It's more important to have pelicans with strong eggs and to appear to be caring about the environment than to save millions of lives.
According to a story in the India times, the use of DDT in India has been much reduced because of the DDT scare stories and it is forbidden for agricultural use there.
DR Roger Bate, a scholar with the NGO Africa Fighting Malaria was in Delhi recently for the promotion of his book, 'When Politics Kills: Malaria and the DDT Story'. In an interview with Sauvik Chakraverti, he advocates increased rather than lowered use of DDT for malaria control.
Why are you advocating the use of DDT in your book?
Malaria kills over one million people every year, many of them children, and the number of deaths is increasing, predominantly in developing countries like India.
Many methods of protection against the disease have been devised. These methods are designed to try to prevent infection, but one of the most effective methods, and definitely the cheapest, is to spray inside houses and buildings with insecticides (such as DDT) to repel, irritate and kill the mosquito that carries the malaria parasite.
Yet, despite a surge in malaria incidence, DDT production is decreasing, and its use is limited to those few countries that still have stockpiles or whose governments produce it. India and China are the only remaining producers.
DDT may have saved lives, but doesn't it harm the environment and kill people?
Given the current debate about DDT in the West, it is important to remember that DDT helped eradicate malaria from the US and Europe.
DDT was also used in agriculture during the 1950s and 1960s and it was this liberal use, and its subsequent accumulation up the food chain, that raised concerns about harm to wildlife.
These concerns led to bans on the agricultural use of DDT in the west. Other countries, such as India and much of Africa, continued to use DDT because they still had to control diseases.
There has never been a scientifically peer-reviewed study that has shown any harm to human beings from DDT. Given that billions of people have been exposed to it, there should be substantial evidence of harm, rather than simply allegations of green alarmists.
Can the Indian government ensure that there is no harm from DDT to the environment?
It is illegal to use DDT in agriculture in India (it is produced only for malaria control). Efforts should be made to ensure that the illegal usage is kept to a minimum.
But DDT should be used for malaria control even if illegal use occurs. According to official estimates, there were 3 million malaria cases in India last year.
But one expert says the actual numbers may be as many as 20 million cases, and many of these in urban areas.
Greens argue that we must abandon DDT because there might be the chance of irreversible harm to wildlife.
But the death of a child is equally irreversible and surely far more tragic — except perhaps to militant environmentalists. Furthermore, malaria will probably have an enormous economic impact in India.
Malaria has reduced the wealth of parts of Africa by over a third over the past 35 years. The impact in India will not be as high, because DDT has been used, but as rates are increasing because of poor management and reduced use of DDT (down by 30 per cent from 1997) the impact is still likely to be substantial.
For example, South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996 and has seen a massive increase of malaria.
What do you suggest should happen in the future?
Before the malaria mosquito re-establishes itself in all the urban areas of India, a concerted DDT spray programme should be initiated.
This will save lives and send a message to the international health community that DDT use should not be abandoned.
India is one of the most powerful countries in the developing world and by promoting DDT use it sets an example, which will directly benefit other developing countries without the political muscle to argue against western eco-imperialism.
And as the only major producer of DDT, India should be helping these countries by exporting DDT, especially to Africa.
There are many African States, from Angola to Zimbabwe who should be eager to buy. But if India continues to reduce its production and use of DDT it will cost lives and perpetuate poverty in India and Africa.
For many years, I grew up in a DDT environment in the Canal Zone. There was spray from the DDT truck everywhere especially at dinnertime when the clouds of spray would come into our homes and also land on our food. This is because the sun had just gone down, and it is the nature of these mosquitoes to come out at that hour.
Nobody to this day who grew up in the Canal Zone has died form DDT poisoning. Also, there are no deaths attributed to secondary causes because, simply stated, there are none.
This is a reason bedbugs are out of control in hotels to include the most prestigious hotels around the glob.
We already know about out of control malaria and yellow fever (to mention a couple) because of no DDT.
glob no, globe yes.
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.