What the World Needs Now Is DDT

[madape]

Just thought I'd post an interesting article I read today on DDT. I proposed a couple of weeks ago that banning DDT may have been the single costliest decision in terms of lives that human had made since Hitler decided to eradicate Jews from Germany. It's nice to see that a major left-leaning pubication like the New York Times agrees with me.



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/11DDT.html
--------------------------------------------------

It's a long article, but here's a relevant quote:

(on the 1960's best-seller "Silent Spring", which initiated the public outcry againt DDT, and indeed the modern ecological movement in the U.S.) In her 297 pages, Rachel Carson never mentioned the fact that by the time she was writing, DDT was responsible for saving tens of millions of lives, perhaps hundreds of millions.

DDT killed bald eagles because of its persistence in the environment. ''Silent Spring'' is now killing African children because of its persistence in the public mind. Public opinion is so firm on DDT that even officials who know it can be employed safely dare not recommend its use. ''The significant issue is whether or not it can be used even in ways that are probably not causing environmental, animal or human damage when there is a general feeling by the public and environmental community that this is a nasty product,'' said David Brandling-Bennett, the former deputy director of P.A.H.O.
--------------------------------------------------


If you are interested, enjoy.

[Mavdog]

1) DDT sprayed via airborne dissemination is devastating to wildlife.
2) There are many types of mosquitos that have become resistant to DDT. Heavy use will only expand this resistance.
3) There are other chemicals that will kill mosquitos, do not have the ancillary negative affects of DDT to wildlife, that can be used. The cost is the issue.
4) If the DDT is ONLY sprayed on walls. windows or furniture it can be non-lethal to other animals; how can this be controlled so that it is not spread outside of these places?

DDT IS a dangerous product, that there is no debate. Unfortunately the use in many countries is not controlled sufficiently to ensure proper spreading and the prevention of its entrance into wildlife, which will be harmed (possibly irrevocably) if such occurs.

[madape]

I won't argue that DDT has certain harmful effects, especially when used as a pesticide for agricultural purposes. However, the pressure put upon foreign governments by the United States and it's rabid environmental activist groups has caused malaria to thrive and kill unchecked in most of the world. Don't you find it concerning that LIBERAL sources are estimating the cost of not using DDT is in the range of "hundreds of millions" of HUMAN lives?

Environmental policy often comes down to a trade-off between human well-being and the well-being of animals. I'd say that if these reports are true about the impact of the DDT ban, America made a devastatingly poor decision... one of the worst in the history of mankind.

The legacy of DDT is quickly being defined as a disgusting example of how misguided ecologic ideology trumps common sense. In this case, the environmentalists have the blood of hundreds of millions on thier hands. I only hope we can learn something from this debacle.

[EricaLubarsky]

how has the banning of DDT in the U.S. killed hundreds of thousands?

There are other insecticides and herbicides that do not cause cancer and birth defects. Monsanto, while an evil company, is conducting R&D into healthier insecticides. The banning of DDT in the US was a major affair that called upon environmental scientists and physicians that determined it was detrimental not only to the health of eagles but the health of humans as well. It also can never be safely used because it is easily washed into the water table where we would drink from. The US did not ban it internationally and the US did not ban all pesticides, insecticides and herbicides- only those that were found by solid science to be hazardous to us.