Not evolution. Natural selection.
Well done indeed. Who is next?
Evolution is the end product of a regime of natural selection.
In the absence of selection (be it natural or unnatural, oooer!), there is no evolution.
And remember, the evolution will NOT BE televised.
[quote=“urodacus”]Evolution is the end product of a regime of natural selection.
In the absence of selection (be it natural or unnatural, oooer!), there is no evolution.
And remember, the evolution will NOT BE televised.[/quote]
No its not. They are two independent phenomena.
Natural selection is the result of changes within the gene pool of a species due to environmental factors (e.g. climate, food availability / type, etc)
Evolution is the result of additional genes to the gene pool (that have some survival advantage, usually indicated by the continued existance of the gene) as the result of mutations cause by radiation or other means. (possibly inter-species interaction: ask Almas John)
All quotes from wikipedia
The above was all before the ban in the US.
So we see that it’s not banned for use in Africa, and in fact never has been.
Resistance reduced the use of DDT before the US ban.
Looks like pesticide use could also be a factor.
So there are better options available, economically speaking.
Resistance again.
Alternatives do work.
And they’re cheaper.
I will respond to CF Images since only he has made an effort to actually provide something of content to this debate… Slightly different figures on the decline in deaths due to malaria. I will note, however, in passing to MT’s comments regarding African use of DDT that is it not necessary for Africa to ban anything. Africa is dependent on outside organizations for nearly all aid in these areas. It is a question of what the donors are constrained by, not the African nations themselves. This has also been the case with regard to use of genetically modified crops. Europe has been able to put great pressure on African nations in this area despite the lack of any relevant laws banning the use of GM crops.
[quote]The ban on DDT was considered the first major victory for the environmentalist movement in the U.S. The effect of the ban in other nations was less salutary, however. In Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) DDT spraying had reduced malaria cases from 2.8 million in 1948 to 17 in 1963. After spraying was stopped in 1964, malaria cases began to rise again and reached 2.5 million in 1969.33
The same pattern was repeated in many other tropical - and usually impoverished - regions of the world. In Zanzibar, the prevalence of malaria among the populace dropped from 70 percent in 1958 to five percent in 1964. By 1984, it was back up to between 50 and 60 percent. The chief malaria expert for the U.S. Agency for International Development said that malaria would have been 98 percent eradicated had DDT continued to be used.34
In addition, from 1960 to 1974, WHO screened about 2,000 compounds for use as antimalarial insecticides. Only 30 were judged promising enough to warrant field trials. WHO found that none of those compounds had the persistence of DDT or was as safe as DDT. (Insecticides such as malathion and carbaryl, which are much more toxic than DDT, were used instead.) And - a very important factor for malaria control in less developed countries - all of the substitutes were considerably more expensive than DDT.35
And what of the charges leveled against DDT? A 1978 National Cancer Institute report concluded - after two years of testing on several different strains of cancer-prone mice and rats - that DDT was not carcinogenic.36 As for the DDT-caused eggshell thinning, it is unclear whether it did, in fact, occur and, if it did, whether the thinning was caused by DDT, by mercury, by PCBs, or by the effects of human encroachment.16,37 And as recently as 1998 researchers reported that thrush eggshells in Great Britain had been thinning at a steady rate 47 years before DDT hit the market; the researchers placed the blame on the early consequences of industrialization.38
Regardless of whether DDT, exclusive of other chemicals, presented a threat to bird populations, it remains in the news. DDT has a long half-life, and residues sometimes persist for years in certain environments. Also, DDT is an organochlorine. Some organochlorines have been shown to have weak estrogenic activity, but the amounts of naturally occurring estrogens in the environment dwarf the amounts of synthetic estrogens.39 A recent article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives suggested that the ratio of natural to synthetic estrogens may be as much as 40,000,000 to 1.40
In addition, Dr. Robert Golden of Environmental Risk Studies in Washington, D.C. reviewed the research of numerous scientists and concluded that DDT and DDE (a breakdown product of DDT) have no significant estrogenic activity.41
The 1996 book Our Stolen Future speculated on a link between DDT and breast cancer, noting that DDE has been found in some breast tumors.42 Recently, charges have been made associating DDT and DDE with breast cancer - specifically, the finding that women with breast cancer had higher levels of DDE in their blood than did women without breast cancer.43
However, elevated blood DDE could quite plausibly be a result of the mobilization of fat from storage depots in the body due to weight loss associated with breast cancer. Breast cancer thus may be a risk factor for elevated DDE, rather than DDE’s being a risk factor for breast cancer.44
In a 1994 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, researchers concluded that their data did not support an association between DDT and breast cancer.45 The researchers did note that breast cancer rates are higher than the national average in many places in the northeastern United States; but the data also indicated that the higher levels could be accounted for by nonenvironmental factors among women living in these regions - factors such as higher socioeconomic status and deferral or avoidance of pregnancy, both of which increase the risks of breast cancer by up to twofold.45-46
In October 1997 the New England Journal of Medicine published a large, well-designed study that found no evidence that exposure to DDT and DDE increases the risk of breast cancer.47 In the accompanying editorial Dr. Steven Safe, a toxicologist at Texas A&M University, stated, "weakly estrogenic organochlorine compounds such as PCBs, DDT, and DDE are not a cause of breast cancer."48 Dr. Sheila Zahm, deputy chief of the occupational epidemiology branch at the National Cancer Institute, agrees that the body of evidence that DDT can cause breast cancer "is not very compelling."49[/quote]
nationalcenter.org/NPA386.html
As to the nets involved as mentioned by CF Images… Again, all from Wikipedia not multiple sources…
[quote]Net Distribution is not Disease Prevention. Nevertheless, USAID touts its policy
as a success and hopes to apply the model in Angola. According to its own reports:
“[T]he distribution of free ITNs [insecticide treated nets] to mothers at the time they
bring their children for immunizations has been very successful in both Togo and
Zambia.”2 3 Ninety percent of mothers went away with bednets. But distribution is not
protection; unfortunately USAID considers distribution a successful end-point. This is a
fatally flawed assumption for several reasons.i ii
In the rural areas, after six months, only 72 percent of households had even bothered to
hang up the nets.iv Donald Roberts, Professor of Tropical Diseases at the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences, analyzed USAID’s papers for Africa Fighting
Malaria—the organization that we head—and said that: “A review of data on use of
insecticide treated nets in Zambia and Togo show that even when nets are provided free
of charge, less than 56 percent of children possessing nets actually sleep under them. Net
usage in urban areas is considerably less than the 56 percent usage in rural areas.”iii iv
Only one net per household is distributed. Since children under five are at greatest risk of
death, the youngest child is often allowed the protection, but what if there are several
children under five in the house?4 What about other family members? Many malarial
mosquitoes enter houses at sunset and feed most aggressively in the early hours of
darkness, so unless a child is actually in bed under the net at nightfall he is at risk. If the
protected child cannot sleep and wants to get into bed with Mom and Dad, stay up late, or
get up early he is at risk.
Furthermore, the insecticide—usually synthetic pyrethroids—in the net wears off after
several months and, unless USAID is planning to buy long lasting insecticide nets, the
net has to be taken for re-treatment. It is unclear from the reports from Zambia and Togo
how many nets were brought back for re-treatment. Additionally, nets can be torn easily
and subsequently offer very little protection. USAID cannot claim success in net
distribution when it doesn’t even know if the nets have been re-treated.
None of these problems were measured in USAID-backed reports to estimate real
efficacy, and, far more importantly, there was no effort to measure impact on morbidity
or mortality from malaria.[/quote]
Furthermore…
[quote]The Solution: Indoor Residual Spraying. Fortunately, there are highly effective
alternatives. Several southern African states have initiated their own programs using a
proven prevention method along with new treatment drugs to successfully control
malaria. The only problem with this method is that it is politically unpopular in the
developed world, and, most dismaying, it is shunned on environmental grounds that have
no relationship to usage in malaria control.
The best method of protection against malaria, in use for 50 years, is indoor residual
spraying (IRS), which consists simply of spraying insecticide on the interior walls of
houses. And the most effective, safest, cheapest, longest-lasting insecticide for this job is
DDT—it crucially deters mosquitoes from entering a building where it has been sprayed.
DDT eradicated malaria from the U.S. and Europe and its careful use led to dramatic
declines in many other parts of the world. But over the last four decades environmental
activists have persuaded public health professionals against using insecticide sprays,
especially DDT.
Where this dubious advice has been followed, malaria rates have risen proportionately to
the reduction in spraying. But fortunately,
those countries that did not have to rely on foreign funding for malaria protection—and could therefore afford to make their own
public health decisions—went back to using DDT.[/b]
A private initiative by a mining
company in Zambia, covering over 360,000 of its workers, their families, and
surrounding villages, reduced malaria incidence by 50 percent in just one year.5 After
South Africa suffered its worst ever malaria outbreak, it decided to risk Western
displeasure and revert to the old methods. In one year, incidence of malaria was reduced
by 80 percent.6
Uganda is currently considering a return to DDT but is being threatened by the European Union (EU) with sanctions against agricultural products. The EU claims
that DDT bought for public health protection could be corruptly sold to farmers and that
residues would end up in produce[/b]
.[/quote]
Clearly, we can see here that the African nations, themselves, need not ban DDT for its use to be severely contrained due to environmentalists in developed nations.
Finally, as to the DDT resistance argument, which I FULLY ADMIT has in many cases great relevance and validity… But the issue is often one of REPELLING mosquitoes not killing them. This is of relevance to household use of DDT as a repellant not wide-spread spraying as a form of KILLING the mosquitos. Read on…
[quote]A malaria-control specialist explains why house spraying with DDT is the only effective method for combatting malaria today.
The following is adapted from a presentation by Donald R. Roberts, Ph.D., Professor of Tropical Public Health at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. Roberts’s talk, titled “DDT and Malaria Control: Past, Present, and Future,” was given to a conference sponsored by Accuracy in Media in Washington, D.C., in October 2002. His views do not represent the official position of the University, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
“DDT became an overnight success in the mid-1940s because it was cheap and relatively safe.”
“Neither case detection and treatment, nor use of insecticide-treated nets will result in dramatic reductions of malaria.”
“International pressure to stop public health uses of DDT should end.”
Rural malaria was a major public health problem prior to the mid-1940s, even in the United States. With the advent of DDT, the era of uncontrolled malaria ended, followed by decades of dramatic control or elimination of both urban and rural malaria. Unfortunately, those marvelous achievements were lost as countries complied with international pressures to abandon DDT and house spray programs.
There are many modern insecticides that might be used as substitutes for DDT, but they are not cheap and do not have a long residual action. The frequent re-spraying of chemicals with short residual activity (DDT alternatives) is not an affordable method of malaria control in rural areas. Thus, as developing countries were forced to abandon house spray programs, they gradually reverted to the conditions of uncontrolled rural malaria that existed before the mid-1940s.
Today, the fundamental relationship of malaria with rural people, and the economics of using house spraying to control mosquitoes in rural environments is “old” knowledge that needs to be relearned.
Major Anti-DDT Myths
The idea that malaria should be controlled by integrating many methods of mosquito control (integrated vector control, or IVC), as opposed to spraying walls with DDT is erroneous…. In fact, IVC is relatively unproven as a broadly affordable and applicable approach to malaria control. IVC methods are particularly irrelevant in rural areas with small numbers of humans surrounded by large areas of mosquito habitat.
Regardless, anti-DDT groups have used the IVC concept to pressure developing countries to stop spraying DDT.
Another favored ideology of environmental activists is that any use of insecticides is counterproductive, because it results in resistant mosquitoes.
In fact, there is little evidence that insecticides on house walls constitute a strong selective pressure for insecticide resistance. Likewise, there is little evidence that resistance, once developed, reduces the effectiveness of DDT residues in preventing indoor transmission of malaria.[/b]
To put these observations into perspective, it is important to understand that DDT became an overnight success in the mid-1940s because it was cheap and relatively safe. There were many chemicals much more toxic to insects than DDT (for example, nicotine); but they were also toxic to humans. Even for insects, DDT exhibited only a slow toxic action. The real secret of its marvelous benefit was powerful action as a non-contact repellent and a contact irritant.
DDT’s repellent/irritant properties were first described in 1945, and were clearly recognized before the first instance of DDT resistance was even reported. To understand how DDT’s repellent and irritant actions function to prevent malaria transmission, we need to understand some basic facts about behavior of malaria mosquitoes.
How Mosquito Transmission Works
Malaria transmission occurs by mosquitoes moving to houses, entering during the early evening, resting indoors and, at some point during the night, landing on humans and biting. During the act of biting, the mosquitoes might acquire malaria parasites and become infected, or if already infected, they might transmit malaria to another human.
DDT residues on house walls can alter this sequence of mosquito behavior. The non-contact repellent action of DDT residues can prevent a malaria mosquito from entering a house. If the mosquito enters, in spite of repellent action, then the contact irritant action might cause it to exit before biting. If the contact irritant action fails, then contact toxicity might still result in mosquito death, after prolonged contact with DDT-treated surfaces.
However, to actually understand how it works we must think in terms of probabilities of events, and introduce the multiplication law of probabilities. Let’s assume that each of the three actions (repellent, irritant, and toxic) function at a level of 50 percent. Let’s also assume that there are 100 mosquitoes that will enter a house if it is not sprayed. If the house is sprayed, 50 percent will not enter. That leaves 50 mosquitoes that will go inside the house. Of these 50 mosquitoes, 50 percent will be irritated and exit without biting. This leaves only 25 that will remain indoors and bite. Of these 25 mosquitoes, 50 percent will absorb a toxic dose of DDT and die.
So, even if the separate actions of DDT function at only a 50 percent level of effectiveness, the combined impact will reduce the success of entering, biting and surviving by 88 to 89 percent, and roughly 86 percent of the total impact will be the result of repellent and irritant actions; only 14 percent of the impact will be due to DDT toxicity.
How does this relate to the real world of malaria and malaria control? Published works suggest that the level of effectiveness of separate actions of DDT residues will vary from one species of malaria vector to another. However, the repellent action alone is invariably above the 50 percent level of effectiveness. Field studies have shown that DDT residues
95 to 97 percent of major malaria mosquitoes in the Americas. Field experiments are often so overwhelmed by the repellent action that researchers cannot even measure the impact of irritant and toxic actions of DDT residues. . . .
How It Started
In 1975, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) jointly announced that there should be greater emphasis on alternatives to the use of insecticides for vector-borne disease control. This joint announcement foreshadowed major changes in malaria control policies and strategies.
In 1979, the WHO announced a global strategy that de-emphasized vector control measures, and placed reliance on case detection and treatment as the preferred means of malaria control. That same year, the Director General of the WHO announced his desire to see malaria control programs moved into primary health care (PHC) systems.
In 1980, the UNEP, WHO, and others created the Panel of Experts for Environmental Management (PEEM) for vector-borne disease control.
Creation of the PEEM was followed by formal elimination of WHO’s vector biology and control program. This was a major organizational change, because the vector biology and control program placed emphasis on use of insecticides for disease control. Elimination of WHO’s vector biology and control program was also important in revealing a strategy of environmental advocacy groups to replace those who influenced policies with individuals who favored environmental protection over public health.
The final step in ideological revision of malaria control occurred in 1985, when the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution calling on participating countries to move malaria control into PHC systems.
Today, those changes in policies and strategies govern what is and what is not done to control burgeoning malaria rates. WHO’s modern global malaria control strategy is based on case detection and treatment. . . . WHO’s Roll Back Malaria initiative calls for use of insecticide treated nets. Insecticide spraying of house walls is not a part of the program.
Of course, in order to endorse insecticide-treated nets, it was necessary to change the yardstick for measuring effectiveness of malaria control methods. Decades past, DDT spraying was evaluated on the basis of total interdiction of malaria transmission. Today, use of nets is considered successful if there is reduction in childhood death. The goal of the Roll Back Malaria initiative is to reduce the amount of malaria within treated populations.
Clearly there is a mismatch in the goal and methods of control. Neither case detection and treatment, nor use of insecticide-treated nets will result in dramatic reductions of malaria within treated populations.
Pressure to Phase Out DDT
International law specifically allows use of DDT for public health, and this is a victory for public health scientists around the world who campaigned vigorously for this option within the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (the “POPs Treaty”). [size=]Yet, in spite of this victory, the WHO, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), United Nations International Childrens’ Emergency Fund (UNICEF), and the World Bank continue efforts to phase out public health use of DDT. It has become a common international practice to offer developing countries funds with the stipulation that they cannot be used to purchase or use DDT.
In 1997, the World Bank extended $165 million in credit to India. The bank funds could be used for expensive pyrethroid insecticides, but none could be used for DDT. Similar pressures were tried in efforts to get the government of Madagascar to stop a successful program to control highland malaria by spraying house walls with DDT.
Perhaps the most egregious example of external pressures is with loans to Eritrea. Overall, 50 percent of mortality and 60 to 80 percent of morbidity in Eritrea is the result of malaria. Within the country there are 145 physicians and 391 nurses. In other words, there is a critical shortage of health professionals. The World Bank, jointly with UNICEF and U.S. Aid for International Development (USAID), provided assistance loans. The UNICEF funds were only for insecticide-treated nets. USAID funds were for environmental assessment. The World Bank funds require Eritrea to “present by the end of the second year, a program and schedule for substituting DDT residual house-spraying by chemicals or techniques that are safer to the environment and human health.”
[size=]These examples provide clear and unambiguous illustrations of environmental advocacy trumping the public health policies of international organizations involved in malaria control[/size].
In summation, without DDT, there is no real hope for reversing modern trends of increasing malaria (with the exception of control programs being restarted in urban areas). As malaria rates increase in developing countries, the risk of malaria being re-introduced to the United States and other developed countries will increase. WHO’s global strategy for malaria control should be changed to emphasize more effective preventive measures. International pressure to stop public health uses of DDT should end.[/quote]
21stcenturysciencetech.com/a … 2/DDT.html
So much for shutting me up eh? haha
Back to y’all. Let me know if anyone has any SPECIFIC questions. I will note with the usual humor and contempt that Mother Theresa has yet to provide any links of any kind to buttress his view. Smirk.
DDT works. Its as simple as that.
Rachel Carson is an unwitting assistant to mass murder.
I was just wondering whether an oil field of humungous proportions was recently discovered somewhere in Africa? I mean, why the sudden interest? Since when did anybody care about Africa, unless it’s to take?
DDT, malaria, tribal wars, regional conflicts, Darfour, genocide, landmines, dictatorships, starvation, malnutrition, HIV AIDS, TB, blood diamonds …
I
[quote]I was just wondering whether an oil field of humungous proportions was recently discovered somewhere in Africa? I mean, why the sudden interest? Since when did anybody care about Africa, unless it’s to take?
DDT, malaria, tribal wars, regional conflicts, Darfour, genocide, landmines, dictatorships, starvation, malnutrition, HIV AIDS, TB, blood diamonds … [/quote]
Cynicism is cheap and demoralizing. Given the strong track record of the West as a source of aid for much of Africa and as a source of much needed investment, one would have to wonder how you would arrive at such a conclusion. Africa’s problems are its own. It does not need outsiders to add to them. The outside contribution to Africa has been for the most part highly positive and far better than what it has received at the hands of its own people. I include even Chinese investment and trade deals in this realm.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]DDT works. Its as simple as that.
Rachel Carson is an unwitting assistant to mass murder.[/quote]
By that logic, TC, we all are guilty of everything. Ford and Benz are guilty of every car accident. I am guilty of causing global warming by breathing out CO2. You are guilty of depleting the world’s stock of barley for food by your consumption of beer. etc etc.
Methinks you are stretching your bow too far.
Personally, I’m in favor of the use of DDT to combat malaria, providing it’s done with adequate safeguards (such as no mass spraying causing resistance to build up quicker).
My points above were merely to show that blaming it all on Rachel Carson, environmentalists and the ban is inaccurate because there are other reasons why malaria is still such a problem in many parts of the world - many of which were evident before DDT bans were even thought of and could still be problems today.
On a side note - in Thailand, most of the green, smoking crop is sprayed with DDT (drug producers obviously don’t give a shit about public health), but I’ve not heard of any instances of Thai-grown ganja killing anyone.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]DDT works. Its as simple as that.
Rachel Carson is an unwitting assistant to mass murder.[/quote]
Snappy slogans work. It’s as simple as that.
As for you Fred, all you’ve done is post further magazine articles. A monkey could do that. I asked if you had any PROOF. You state that environmentalists killed millions in Africa.
-
Please state the names of all persons killed in Africa by environmentalists, for each person providing his/her full name, date of birth and death, and cause of death.
-
For each person identified in response to question number 1, please explain precisely what environmental organization or individual is responsible for the person’s death and in what way.
-
For each person identified in response to question number 1, please identify all witnesses with any knowledge of the facts or circumstances concerning the person’s death.
-
For each person identified in response to question number 1, please identify the person’s mother, father, and all brothers and sisters, giving the date and place of birth for each, date of death (where applicable), and cause of death.
-
Please describe all successful actions taken by any organization or individual in Africa attempting to obtain DDT for use in controlling mosquitos, for each such action identifying the specific organization or individual making the attempt, the date of the attempt, and the specific result of the attempt.
-
Please describe all unsuccessful actions taken by any organization or individual in Africa attempting to obtain DDT for use in controlling mosquitos, for each such action identifying the specific organization or individual making the attempt, the date of the attempt, and the specific result of the attempt.
-
Please describe all instances in which any individual or organization failed or refused to deliver DDT to Africa due to environmentalists, for each such instance identifying the individual or organization, the date it failed or refused to deliver DDT, and any statements it made concerning its reasons for failing or refusing to deliver DDT.
-
Please describe all actions taken by environmentalists which are directly responsible for killing any person in Africa, for each such action identifying the name of the person or organization taking the action, the date of action, names of all witnesses to the action, names of all persons killed by the action, and explaining precisely how the action was responsible for the deaths.
-
Please describe the date Fred Smith first became aware of any actions described in response to questions 1 through 8, in each case identifying the specific action and the date Fred Smith became aware of it.
-
Please describe all actions taken by Fred Smith at any time to prevent any environmentalist individual or organization from killing people in Africa, in each case identify the specific action taken by Fred Smith, the date of the action, and the names of all persons with knowledge of the actions taken by Fred Smith to prevent environmentalists from killing people in Africa.
Back at you, Fred.
That is all we are asking…
Yes, but then you are ignoring my points which have cited numerous experts on how and why DDT has played the major role in lowering malaria death counts. Reread the citations and let me know if you have any further points of contention or require further clarification.
I’m still waiting Fred. . . 
and waiting. . .
and waiting . . . 
Especially with some “folks”…
What are the alternatives to offering evidence online? You can look into any of the statement made by any of the sources and challenge them specifically with magazine articles from online sources yourself. That is what CF Images did. Why cannot you?
[quote]1. Please state the names of all persons killed in Africa by environmentalists, for each person providing his/her full name, date of birth and death, and cause of death.
-
For each person identified in response to question number 1, please explain precisely what environmental organization or individual is responsible for the person’s death and in what way.
-
For each person identified in response to question number 1, please identify all witnesses with any knowledge of the facts or circumstances concerning the person’s death.
-
For each person identified in response to question number 1, please identify the person’s mother, father, and all brothers and sisters, giving the date and place of birth for each, date of death (where applicable), and cause of death.
-
Please describe all successful actions taken by any organization or individual in Africa attempting to obtain DDT for use in controlling mosquitos, for each such action identifying the specific organization or individual making the attempt, the date of the attempt, and the specific result of the attempt.
-
Please describe all unsuccessful actions taken by any organization or individual in Africa attempting to obtain DDT for use in controlling mosquitos, for each such action identifying the specific organization or individual making the attempt, the date of the attempt, and the specific result of the attempt.
-
Please describe all instances in which any individual or organization failed or refused to deliver DDT to Africa due to environmentalists, for each such instance identifying the individual or organization, the date it failed or refused to deliver DDT, and any statements it made concerning its reasons for failing or refusing to deliver DDT.
-
Please describe all actions taken by environmentalists which are directly responsible for killing any person in Africa, for each such action identifying the name of the person or organization taking the action, the date of action, names of all witnesses to the action, names of all persons killed by the action, and explaining precisely how the action was responsible for the deaths.
-
Please describe the date Fred Smith first became aware of any actions described in response to questions 1 through 8, in each case identifying the specific action and the date Fred Smith became aware of it.
-
Please describe all actions taken by Fred Smith at any time to prevent any environmentalist individual or organization from killing people in Africa, in each case identify the specific action taken by Fred Smith, the date of the action, and the names of all persons with knowledge of the actions taken by Fred Smith to prevent environmentalists from killing people in Africa.
Back at you, Fred.[/quote]
How droll and how amusing. But how irrelevant.
The POLICIES of Western governments have been affected by environmentalist movements. Source after source supplied has indicated that Western government not only banned the use of DDT in their own nations but also outlawed its use as a stipulation for aid money provided and in some cases slapped trade restrictions on nations (mostly agricultural supplies) using DDT. These governments did so for one reason and one reason only. Environmentalist groups had successfully lobbied these government to ban DDT.
The banning of DDT led to millions of deaths. These have been well-documented by my sources which have showed how DDT led to massive drops in malaria death counts and how they rose again when use of DDT had been banned.
No one has ever said that DDT needed to be sprayed across massive areas. The ban was not for partial use of DDT in better ways by using only in households but for the complete ban on use of DDT. Usage can change when additional information leads to new knowledge about the negative and positive effects of previous efforts.
Again as to the resistance factor, this is true BUT DDT is best used as a REPELLANT and this can be done very effectively indoors. There is no reason to kill all the outside mosquitos to accomplish this, especially important given that mosquitos feed AT NIGHT when most people would be INDOORS.
I can understand how someone who supports Che and others of questionable morality would find it highly displeasing to have his or her actions and his or her stances on issues thrown back at them with the moral costs attached. You and others seem to have few qualms about doing so when it suits you in the case of anti-terrorist actions, the invasion of Iraq, the attack on Afghanistan when civilian casualties are involved. EVEN if we assume that ALL such casualties must be attributed to the US despite the fact that the US is doing everything to protect these people, the numbers are 65,000 in the case of Iraq. Not much of a comparison when the potential death tally for Africa alone is nearly 100,000,000. AND those deaths are to a degree of 86 percent attributable to the ban on use of DDT.
Also, if I am wrong about DDT, why then has the UN once again allowed its use? Why are other organizations now legally entitled to use it? encourage its use? What happened to change their minds and why is that not sufficient to get you to change yours? I think it is because you have an emotionally invested position in this. You were wrong. You are wrong. And continuing to argue as you have is still wrong. It is what I find most amusing and yet most contemptible about many on the left. You are wrong, wrong, wrong time and time again and yet? You meant well and so everything should be okay. Well, sorry your esoteric and selective and nay even convenient interpretations of morality do not interest me. In fact, they repulse me to the same highly effective degree as DDT does to malaria carrying mosquitos! haha
[quote=“fred smith”]
Yes, but then you are ignoring my points which have cited numerous experts on how and why DDT has played the major role in lowering malaria death counts. Reread the citations and let me know if you have any further points of contention or require further clarification.[/quote]
But I don’t necessarily disagree with them. DDT has played a major role in lowering malaria deaths. I don’t dispute that. I’m not ignoring your points at all.
I’m just saying that placing all the blame on environmentalists and the ban is not the only reason why malaria is still a problem. There are other important factors that are usually left out of the debate.
I can’t remember if it was one of the quoted points from wikipedia or not, (if not, click on the link, it’s near the bottom of the wiki article) but in India they can’t use DDT anymore. Not because of a ban, not because on environmentalists but because the malaria carrying mosquitoes have built up a resistance to DDT - in the killing sense and the repelling sense. It is now ineffective there.
Translation: I prefer not to answer because I have no such evidence.
By the way, Fred, has it been a dozen times now that you’ve made this argument on forumosa about how the banning of DDT has killed millions in Africa?
Oh, yea, one more question:
- Please disclose all investments Fred Smith owns in any company that manufactures, sells, or distributes DDT, including stating names of companies and number of shares owned, where applicable.
Like a little kid jumping up and down screaming while the adults are trying to talk. Quieten down over there!