Libs, Did You Know DDT is Being Used to Save Lives After 40 Million Died of Malaria?

Question

... because environmentalists refused to let it be used in limited ways?

Was it a mistake for Liberals to allow tens of millions to die because they wouldn't support limited usage of DDT to fight malaria?

Thank God the World Health Organization finally realized how many people were dying because of environmentalists being too rigid.

"... the World Health Organization last year recommended the use of DDT in places like Africa where malaria is still common, saying the benefits outweighed the risks."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKN0838170520070809

16 million died under Clinton's watch while he did NOTHING about malaria.

Thank God for president Bush being wise.

Answer 1

If they know then they sure aren't talking about it...I tried to tell people about this months ago.

Answer 2

Oh, have conservatives embraced the mission of the World Health Organization now? That's great news! It's nice to hear they've grown a charitable ideal. So, will the Republican party be addressing other issues in Africa now? There's a few dictators that should be overthrown, and freedom to spread around. Sure, they don't have as much oil under their sand, but it's only for the people, right?

DDT is banned from fruit- which I suppose is lucky for you.

And how exactly do you believe President Bush influenced the decision of the World Health Organization?

Answer 3

You do realize there are better ways of controlling the anopheles mosquito that carries the malaria bug - it's called mosquito netting; you put it over your bed at night when the mosquitoes are biting. A simple solution. You don't have to start polluting the land with noxious chemicals to control malaria. Pesticides and herbicides and other agricultural chemicals end up in the waterways - and ultimately end up in our kids' bodies. You can have it either way, keep the kids from getting malaria by using highly toxic chemicals, and have them die of cancer or liver failure or some other disease equally as awful as malaria when they've ingested all these highly-toxic chemicals. Using DDT could end up wiping out entire species of birds, that is an ecological nightmare, and could end up killing more children than malaria does. DDT kills bees as well, and where would the kids be if their crops fail because they weren't pollinated? Your "solution" would be even worse than the original problem. You haven't thought this out very well - there's some things that you omitted or didn't think about.

Answer 4

It didn't appear that DDT was ever banned. It just seems like the risks were made aware by environmentalists and the country weighed those risks to benefits and made a choice. Places like the US, where there is no malaria epidemic, have harsher restrictions on DDT because there is significantly less benefits compared to the risks.

But if the libs had it their way, everything dangerous would be banned, then they would study it later. In other words, error on the side of taking away rights.

Answer 5

The people in Africa are using it to combat Malaria, even IF it does kill some the majority will be saved. So there is some good that can come out of this.

As for the environmentalists, they have ALWAYS put their cause ahead of humans.

There was an article that farmers needed the water from a stream and the tree huggers blocked it off for a fish and the farmers crop died out. I enclosed a link.

Answer 6

Actually, it never stopped being used in many places around the world, especially the third world. And most scientific evidence points to malaria still being around due to factors unrelated to limiting use of DDT. In fact, there is evidence that mosquitoes have developed some level of resistance to DDT.

Not that facts should bother you, of course.

Answer 7

There are plenty of alternatives to DDT. Including Synthetic pyrethroids (which are more effective but more expensive), rebuilding ecosystems to have healthy predators (it is no coincidence that malaria outbreaks follow destruction of wetlands), replanting trees can reduce erosian caused stagnant water, in addition there are a number of vaccines that are being worked on.

The fact is that chemical manufacturers and the Western rich countries like DDT being used because they don't have to invest in alternative strategies like ecosystem rebuilding or using pyrethoids which are environmentally nascent. Let's invest in real solutions instead of accepting the solutions that haven't worked.

Answer 8

Environmentalists in the US got DDT banned (you realize it is lawmakers who pass these bills, NOT special interest groups) because businesses wait until they are forced to do smoething about it. Malaria is not a problem here. But it is cute that you tried to tie together 2 completely unrelated things, and find a way to blame those who wish to CONSERVE (you know, conserve? like your party is all about?) resources and protect the planet.

Answer 9

Yes, this debate has been raging for years. It shouldn't be news to anyone. The issue beyond the WHO proclamation is: will countries that use DDT be denied aid because of its use. That has traditionally been the issue.

Answer 10

um.. what the hell does Bush have to do with the World Health Organization? Or did Clinton have to do for that matter?


And I agree.. the benefits outweigh the risks.. .... so long as they don't overdo it it should be very beneficial to the region.

Answer 11

If you believe that DDT is safe, why don't you demostrate by filling up an air bottle of it and breathing it through a respirator for a couple of days?

One thing for sure, I doubt you would ever have to worry about catching malaria.