Millions Died Because Environmental Activists Were WRONG

While the left worries about 65,000 dead Iraqis who are being killed NOT by US troops but by insurgents and terrorists, blaming the US for opening this Pandora’s Box, it remains strangely silent about how its past policies have led to deaths on an unimaginable scale. We are talking up to 100 million deaths from malaria. Read on.

[quote]Detoxifying DDT
By Bill Steigerwald | May 14, 2007

You missed the Africa Malaria Day celebration on April 25, didn’t you?

Perfectly understandable. Unless you’re headed for a three-week safari in Kenya, malaria doesn’t appear on our modern radar screens.

But for the poorest, hottest corners of the planet, malaria remains a scourge for which there is no vaccine. The incapacitating disease, caused by a parasite transmitted from humans to humans by mosquitoes, afflicts from 350 million to 500 million people a year in Asia, Africa and South America. More than 80 percent are in rural Africa.

Every year malaria kills at least 1 million humans – nearly 3,000 a day, mostly the very young or pregnant. The real figure could be 2.5 million annual deaths. No one knows for sure.

Despite these daunting statistics, the global war against malaria may finally be taking a turn for the better. The same miracle weapon that we and most of Europe employed to rid ourselves of malaria half a century ago – the pesticide DDT – is starting to be used more widely in Africa.

DDT isn’t foolproof but works wonders. Lightly sprayed twice a year on the inside walls of living quarters, it’s like Kryptonite to the mosquitoes that carry malaria. In 1945 when India began using DDT, it had 800,000 malaria deaths a year; by 1960, it had a few thousand.

Other malarial hells were not so lucky. In the early 1970s environmentalists spooked by Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” successfully lobbied the federal government to outlaw DDT in the United States because it allegedly was killing off American eagles and was a cancer threat to humans.

It’s turned out that DDT is virtually harmless to man, bird or beast. But that didn’t help Africa’s malaria sufferers, who for 30 years were deprived of DDT because Western relief aid was often contingent on recipient countries not using DDT. Most poor countries that needed it most stopped using it or never got it.
[color=red]Tens of millions died[/color]

Fast-forward to the early 2000s. People in the West – including The New York Times – came to their senses about bringing back DDT. Some even realized how hypocritical and immoral it was for rich First Worlders to deny poor Third Worlders access to the same pesticide that had made the West malaria-free.

A mini-miracle occurred last year when the World Health Organization reversed its 30-year anti-DDT policy and re-integrated DDT into its heretofore hapless and largely ineffective anti-malaria program.

Environmentalists are still outraged. But DDT remains the cheapest and most effective pesticide for house spraying, which is why countries like South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda are already applying DDT to fight malaria or trying to get the money to do so.

Malaria now is a fashionable but worthy blip on Western radar screens. But DDT obviously still has a radioactive politically incorrect stigma attached to it.

For example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, bless its namesakes, has spent at least $1 billion fighting malaria in Africa. Much of that money goes to organizations that then disburse the money to existing national anti-malaria programs that employ DDT spraying, but the foundation itself is conspicuously shy about publicly supporting DDT use.

Last December, as part of a global strategy to fight malaria, the foundation committed $83.5 million for things like bed netting, vaccine research and malaria awareness. Not a dime was specifically set aside for DDT or its application. In fact, the letters D-D-T – which barely exist on the website – didn’t appear on the foundation’s press release.[/quote] … p?ID=28261

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:


It depends on how you use DDT … controlled or not …

The proof has been supplied. See above.

Environmentalists banned DDT without qualifying how or when it could be used. As a result, millions have died.

I guess Mother Theresa just does not care about poor Africans. Typical skewed sense of morality. Ironic that he has chosen that avatar. Maybe Stalin or Hitler or Mao or some other thug would have been a better choice. Maybe Che? Castro? Chavez?

Wasn’t malaria created as a biological weapon by the US?

THAT’s the spirit!

How many would DDT have saved ? Really millions or would a good proportion have died from Malaria anyway ? You’re right about environmentalists condemning everything they don’t understand, but aren’t you exaggerating a little bit ? Due to the short life cycle of the mosquito and infrastructure in “rural areas” DDT isn’t very effective in stopping malaria. As you well know.

That’s not proof. That’s a magazine article. You’re just an armchair googler.

Get some real proof and then you can come back and talk.

DDT is the best and cheapest method of controlling malaria-bearing mosquitoes. The results of DDT use in housing and on bed screens has been phenomenal. Most of these mosquitoes feed at night. Starting to get the picture? Anyway, twice in one day… I guess you will be getting back to the Open Forum now?

Love Fred

And mosquitoes became immune to DDT due to something called evolution. Oh, right-wingers don’t believe in that.

Do you dispute that 1 million people die from malaria every year?

Do you dispute that 80 percent are in Africa?

Do you dispute the figures showing how much malaria death rates dropped when used in Africa? India?

Do you dispute that the various organizations including the UN have now backed using DDT in the ways prescribed?

Let me know what you dispute and I will be happy to do so. In the meantime, might I suggest that you disprove anything in the above article that you disagree with.

Sorry Big Fluffy Matthew but… this really isn’t your forte is it? not quite up to a discussion on this subject?

Oh SPANK me! :bravo:

Besides, if Rachel Carson’s book caused DDT to be banned in the US, why would that kill children in Africa?

Please tell us what countries in Africa ban the use of DDT and identify the relevant laws and the date of enactment.

Cannot read too good can you. I am starting to suspect that you might have been one of the anti-DDT brigade and look at what blood you have on your hands if you were.

Back to you. We could keep bouncing back and forth between this or you could try reading the information provided and then start your usual knee-jerk dismissals. haha

Would banning DDT be similar to banning research into stem cells that may cure millions of disease ?

Cannot write too well, can you?

Back to you. We could keep bouncing back and forth between this or you could try reading the information provided and then start your usual knee-jerk dismissals. haha[/quote]

Still no proof, eh?

Please identify all African nations that attempted to procure DDT for the control of malaria but were unable to due to restrictions imposed for environmental reasons, for each nation stating all dates on which it made such attempts to procure DDT, the dates and reasons for being rejected the DDT, and the annual number of malaria deaths in that country since its first such attempt. Also, please provide all supporting documents.

I think what Fred is trying to say is that the African countries couldn’t get DDT because the USA wouldn’t give it to them. The USA caused millions of deaths in Africa by not helping them get DDT.

DDT is still as bad as it ever was. The question is, how bad was it really? In the huge amounts that it was abused in agriculture, it sucked: it is extremely persistent, and we still don’t know a lot of what it does. It is a fairly harmless compound at low doses, and even high doses have not been shown to affect cancer rates etc (but most research was done in the 1970s, and little safety work since then). Not sure where Rachel Carson got her stuff about bird shells thinning, which has been pretty much debunked.

That’s for vertebrates, folks. For insects, it is a bad poison, and surely can be used for malaria control INSIDE houses as so little is used. Blanket spraying of malaria ponds and its use as the main crop control insecticide á la 1960s modes of application is not helpful as it leads to resistance among mosquitoes, and a HUGE toll on normal insect life that may have been more responsible for the comprehensive US-wide loss of small song birds than the egg shell thinning that was the purported cause (but still attributable to the effects of DDT). Killing the predatory insects like dragonflies that eat mosquitoes pehaps worsened the mosquito problem in the first place.

Still, it is a persistent organochlorine, and thus it has very little to support it. All organochlorines are perssitent fat-soluble compounds with little known about their effects on ecology. many are implicated in hormone disruption of animla in for example the Everglades, among many other places. 12 particularly persistent ones were banned in 2000 by the UN, a group known as POPs (Google it).

The case against DDT may well have had a large political angle to it, such as the major drug companies wanting to get a much more expensive insecticide regime installed in its place. But if that is the case, why isn’t Fred writing about the tragic loss of hemp to the nylon industry? The demonisation of marijuana would seem to be a much more worthy target for him. ‘Reefer Madness’, anyone?

And on another point: how are we going to cope with the extra 3 million mouths to feed in Africa per year, once malaria has been eliminated (which DDT won’t do)? Where will the food and water come from that is already in such short supply there?
What about the search for a malaria vaccine, which has a much better chance of stopping the toll of this disease than DDT ever will?
Can we deny these people the same standard of living as we have in the west? Oh, and how many Americans would want to share their precious shopping malls with teeming hordes of dosplaced people from Africa and South America? Oh, I forget, there is no problem that science cannot solve for us, incluing how to create resources out of nothing while repairing the damage to the world that we have already done from having far too many people on the planet…

There is no simple ethical answer.

Madonna could adopt them and Oprah could provide free school meals.


Looks like we shut him up good this time. :bravo: