Why Earth Day should be Renamed "Malaria Day"

[Hoosier4Liberty]

A key "victory" in the environmental movement was the ban of DDT. The use of this chemical was considered anathema to the elites in society who disliked the idea of having an efficient, effective method of killing insects and producing better crop yields. We all know the anti-prosperity crowd hates any form of chemical/agricultural process, so this is no surprise.

DDT Ban Breeds Death
USNAS Estimates DDT Saved 500 Milion Lives Before it was Banned | Access to Energy

Millions of Africans have died because of the DDT ban. We have "Malaria Awareness Day" now BECAUSE we have "Earth Day".

This Earth day, let's honor the people who've actually given us progress in society: the coal, oil, nuclear, and natural gas industries. They're cleaning up on their own and helping produce energy for billions of people across the world.

So relax, crank up your A/C, and enjoy the fruits that industrial technology has provided.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Leftists can't deny the horrible impact that banning DDT has had on the lives of poor Africans. Maybe the ban doesn't affect the latte liberals living in Upper West Side, but it's sure hurt the starving children living in Uganda, Malawi, and Tanzania.

 

[Edgetho]

Leftists can't deny the horrible impact that banning DDT has had on the lives of poor Africans. Maybe the ban doesn't affect the latte liberals living in Upper West Side, but it's sure hurt the starving children living in Uganda, Malawi, and Tanzania.

dimocraps deny nothing. They ignore it and they attack when it's brought up.

Besides, aren't most of the kids that are dying what they like to call 'minorities'? Black kids?

Yeah, dimocrap scum care about Blacks about like I care about dimocraps.

Not at all

 

[NYcarbineer]

A key "victory" in the environmental movement was the ban of DDT. The use of this chemical was considered anathema to the elites in society who disliked the idea of having an efficient, effective method of killing insects and producing better crop yields. We all know the anti-prosperity crowd hates any form of chemical/agricultural process, so this is no surprise.

DDT Ban Breeds Death
USNAS Estimates DDT Saved 500 Milion Lives Before it was Banned | Access to Energy

Millions of Africans have died because of the DDT ban. We have "Malaria Awareness Day" now BECAUSE we have "Earth Day".

This Earth day, let's honor the people who've actually given us progress in society: the coal, oil, nuclear, and natural gas industries. They're cleaning up on their own and helping produce energy for billions of people across the world.

So relax, crank up your A/C, and enjoy the fruits that industrial technology has provided.

DDT as an insecticide wasn't banned in Africa.

 

[Coyote]

Moved to Environment.

 

[elektra]

A key "victory" in the environmental movement was the ban of DDT. The use of this chemical was considered anathema to the elites in society who disliked the idea of having an efficient, effective method of killing insects and producing better crop yields. We all know the anti-prosperity crowd hates any form of chemical/agricultural process, so this is no surprise.

DDT Ban Breeds Death
USNAS Estimates DDT Saved 500 Milion Lives Before it was Banned | Access to Energy

Millions of Africans have died because of the DDT ban. We have "Malaria Awareness Day" now BECAUSE we have "Earth Day".

This Earth day, let's honor the people who've actually given us progress in society: the coal, oil, nuclear, and natural gas industries. They're cleaning up on their own and helping produce energy for billions of people across the world.

So relax, crank up your A/C, and enjoy the fruits that industrial technology has provided.

DDT as an insecticide wasn't banned in Africa.

So Africa's well educated, well governed countries should just go to their cutting edge Chemical Industry and make DDT and kill the mosquitoes.

Maybe all the great Environmental Scientist should devote 10 seconds of their time and come up with an even better solution. They are brilliant after all.

 

[flacaltenn]

A key "victory" in the environmental movement was the ban of DDT. The use of this chemical was considered anathema to the elites in society who disliked the idea of having an efficient, effective method of killing insects and producing better crop yields. We all know the anti-prosperity crowd hates any form of chemical/agricultural process, so this is no surprise.

DDT Ban Breeds Death
USNAS Estimates DDT Saved 500 Milion Lives Before it was Banned | Access to Energy

Millions of Africans have died because of the DDT ban. We have "Malaria Awareness Day" now BECAUSE we have "Earth Day".

This Earth day, let's honor the people who've actually given us progress in society: the coal, oil, nuclear, and natural gas industries. They're cleaning up on their own and helping produce energy for billions of people across the world.

So relax, crank up your A/C, and enjoy the fruits that industrial technology has provided.

DDT as an insecticide wasn't banned in Africa.

That's not clear at all.. It was banned worldwide by a Stockholm agreement with very few exceptions and the African Union is STILL debating the wide-spread availability and use.

African countries adopt controversial deadly chemical, DDT, for malaria treatment - Premium Times Nigeria

MAJOR areas of Africa had stopped using and making the stuff until the past 8 or 10 years..
LOTS of damage done by indecision..

 

[Old Rocks]

First of all, where DDT was overused, not only was there major environmental damage, put eagles and other raptors on the endangered list in North America, but the mosquitoes developed an immunity to it. In Africa, the debate is not about whether to use DDT or not, but where using it is still effective.

But don't let facts get in the way of the continued lies concerning DDT. Not the "Conservative" way.

 

[waltky]

Weakened protein weakens malaria parasite...

Experimental Malaria Vaccine Weakens Parasite
May 22, 2014 ~ Scientists are developing a vaccine against malaria that is designed to limit the illness in children who have been bitten by mosquitoes carrying the disease-causing organism. They have discovered a protein that is essential for malaria parasites to cause severe illness.

With the protein, called SEA, the parasite is able to burst through infected red blood cells, ramping up disease symptoms. But malaria parasites deprived of SEA are trapped inside the cells where they wither away and are eventually eliminated from the body by the spleen. Researchers at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, and Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts discovered the protein. Jonathan Kurtis is director of the Center for International Health Research at Rhode Island Hospital and lead author of the study which appears in the journal Science.

Kurtis says an experimental vaccine containing antibodies against the parasitic protein was developed and tested in mice. Rodents that received the vaccine were only mildly sick and had fewer parasites in their bodies than untreated mice. Next, Kurtis says investigators measured levels of antibodies to the SEA protein in a group of 785 Tanzanian children. “And children with antibodies to our protein never got severe malaria - there were zero cases - as compared to children who did not have antibodies to our protein,” Kurtis said.

Researchers then analyzed blood samples collected in 1997 from 140 children in Kenya. Investigators found there were 50 percent fewer parasites in the serum of youngsters that produced antibodies to SEA during a high transmission season. As with the Tanzanian children, there were also no severe cases of the disease in children with antibodies against the protein, according to Kurtis. “And so the thought is by immunizing people with the SEA proteins, so that they make their own antibodies, they’ll be protected,” he added. The next step, Kurtis says, is to test a laboratory-made SEA vaccine to see whether it works in primates.

Kurtis says he’s excited that researchers may be on the verge of an effective drug that lessens the severity of a malaria infection, but he’s also humbled. “Our eye has to be on the prize. And the prize is - you’ve got a child every 15 seconds, just during this phone conversation, you know dozens and dozens of children have died of malaria,” Kurtis said. "It’s just unbelievable.” If the vaccine proves to be safe and effective in monkeys within the next year, researchers expect they’ll move quickly to human vaccine trials. Kurtis says the goal eventually is to immunize youngsters in malaria-endemic regions at the same time they are vaccinated against other childhood illnesses.

Experimental Malaria Vaccine Weakens Parasite

 

[SSDD]

First of all, where DDT was overused, not only was there major environmental damage, put eagles and other raptors on the endangered list in North America, but the mosquitoes developed an immunity to it. In Africa, the debate is not about whether to use DDT or not, but where using it is still effective.

But don't let facts get in the way of the continued lies concerning DDT. Not the "Conservative" way.

How much peer reviewed research would you like to see that states that DDT did not harm eagles or any other birds? And you have a lot of nerve claiming that DDT harmed eagles while you support wind farms which genuinely do cause eagle deaths by the thousands.

 

[skookerasbil]

The human racists are far more destructive to peoples all over the world as compared to the climate.......after all, the earth is more important. To the people who live on it the AGW assholes say, FUCK YOU!!"

 

[mamooth]

It's a good thing the planet has completely ignored the policies of the deniers that would have killed millions.

But it enrages the deniers. If they have to see millions killed just so they don't have to admit being idiots again, that's a price they're willing to have someone else pay. A lot of the deniers here are poster children for the banality of evil.

 

[Coyote]

Leftists can't deny the horrible impact that banning DDT has had on the lives of poor Africans. Maybe the ban doesn't affect the latte liberals living in Upper West Side, but it's sure hurt the starving children living in Uganda, Malawi, and Tanzania.

Not really.

At the time it was banned it was already losing it's effectiveness due to increasing resistance of mosquitos to DDT.

It also had nothing whatsover to do with famine in Africa.

A little bit of honesty would help.

 

[RollingThunder]

A key "victory" in the environmental movement was the ban of DDT. The use of this chemical was considered anathema to the elites in society who disliked the idea of having an efficient, effective method of killing insects and producing better crop yields. We all know the anti-prosperity crowd hates any form of chemical/agricultural process, so this is no surprise.

This post is why you should be renamed 'Retard-Boy'. I thought the other rightwingnuts on here were stupid and misinformed but you easily equal them. Do you just swallow any BS that is handed to you without doing any checking?

This idiotic and very fraudulent rightwingnut myth has been thoroughly debunked many times but the brainwashed rightie-tighties still swallow the bullcrap.

DDT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

In 1955, the World Health Organization commenced a program to eradicate malaria worldwide, relying largely on DDT. The program was initially highly successful, eliminating the disease in "Taiwan, much of the Caribbean, the Balkans, parts of northern Africa, the northern region of Australia, and a large swath of the South Pacific"[19] and dramatically reducing mortality in Sri Lanka and India.[20] However widespread agricultural use led to resistant insect populations. In many areas, early victories partially or completely reversed, and in some cases rates of transmission even increased.[21] The program was successful in eliminating malaria only in areas with "high socio-economic status, well-organized healthcare systems, and relatively less intensive or seasonal malaria transmission".[22]

DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was not applied at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties. Mortality rates in that area never declined to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especially following the disease's resurgence as a result of resistance to drug treatments and the spread of the deadly malarial variant caused by Plasmodium falciparum. The goal of eradication was abandoned in 1969, and attention was focused on controlling and treating the disease. Spraying programs (especially using DDT) were curtailed due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation, but mostly because mosquitoes were developing resistance to DDT.[21] Efforts shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides and other interventions.[22][23]

...The EPA then held seven months of hearings in 1971–1972, with scientists giving evidence both for and against the use of DDT. In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus announced the cancellation of most uses of DDT—an exemption allowed for public health uses under some conditions.[12] Immediately after the cancellation was announced, both EDF and the DDT manufacturers filed suit against the EPA, with the industry seeking to overturn the ban, and EDF seeking a comprehensive ban. The cases were consolidated, and in 1973 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA had acted properly in banning DDT.[12]

The U.S. DDT ban took place amidst a growing public mistrust of industry, with the Surgeon General issuing a report on smoking in 1964, the Cuyahoga River catching fire in 1969, the fiasco surrounding the use of diethylstilbestrol (DES), and the well-publicized decline in the bald eagle population.[25]

Some uses of DDT continued under the public health exemption. For example, in June 1979, the California Department of Health Services was permitted to use DDT to suppress flea vectors of bubonic plague.[27] DDT also continued to be produced in the US for foreign markets until as late as 1985, when over 300 tonnes were exported.[1]

Restrictions on usage

In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968[28] then in Norway and Sweden in 1970, Germany and the United States in 1972, but not in the United Kingdom until 1984. Vector control use has not been banned, but it has been largely replaced by less persistent alternative insecticides.

The Stockholm Convention, which took effect in 2004, outlawed several persistent organic pollutants, and restricted DDT use to vector control. The Convention has been ratified by more than 170 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. Recognizing that total elimination in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives, public health use is exempt from the ban pending acceptable alternatives. Malaria Foundation International states, "The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations...For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."[29]

Despite the worldwide ban, agricultural use continues in India[30] North Korea, and possibly elsewhere.[14]

Today, about 3-4,000 tonnes each year are produced for vector control.[13] DDT is applied to the inside walls of homes to kill or repel mosquitoes. This intervention, called indoor residual spraying (IRS), greatly reduces environmental damage. It also reduces the incidence of DDT resistance.[31] For comparison, treating 40 hectares (99 acres) of cotton during a typical U.S. growing season requires the same amount of chemical as roughly 1,700 homes.[32]

Environmental impact

DDT is a persistent organic pollutant that is extremely hydrophobic and strongly absorbed by soil. Depending on conditions, its soil half life can range from 22 days to 30 years. Routes of loss and degradation include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. When applied to aquatic ecosystems it is quickly absorbed by organisms and by soil or it evaporates, leaving little DDT dissolved in the water itself. Its breakdown products and metabolites, DDE and DDD, are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and physical properties.[1] DDT and its breakdown products are transported from warmer regions of the world to the Arctic by the phenomenon of global distillation, where they then accumulate in the region's food web.[33]

Because of its lipophilic properties, DDT has a high potential to bioaccumulate, especially in predatory birds.[34] DDT, DDE, and DDD magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptor birds concentrating more chemicals than other animals in the same environment. They are very lipophilic and are stored mainly in body fat. DDT and DDE are very resistant to metabolism; in humans, their half-lives are 6 and up to 10 years, respectively. In the United States, these chemicals were detected in almost all human blood samples tested by the Centers for Disease Control in 2005, though their levels have sharply declined since most uses were banned in the US.[35] Estimated dietary intake has also declined,[35] although FDA food tests commonly detect it.[36]

DDT is toxic to a wide range of animals in addition to insects, including marine animals such as crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. It is less toxic to mammals, but may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stage. Most famously, it is a reproductive toxicant for certain birds species, and it is a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle,[7] brown pelican[38] peregrine falcon, and osprey.[1] Birds of prey, waterfowl, and song birds are more susceptible to eggshell thinning than chickens and related species, and DDE appears to be more potent than DDT.[1] Even in 2010, more than forty years after the U.S. ban, California condors which feed on sea lions at Big Sur which in turn feed in the Palos Verdes Shelf area of the Montrose Chemical Superfund site seemed to be having continued thin-shell problems. Scientists with the Ventana Wildlife Society and others are intensifying studies and remediations of the condors' problems.[39]

DDT and DDE have been linked to diabetes. A number of studies from the US, Canada, and Sweden have found that the prevalence of the disease in a population increases with serum DDT or DDE levels.[49][50][51][52][53][54]

DDT and DDE, like other organochlorines, have been shown to have xenoestrogenic activity, meaning they are chemically similar enough to estrogens to trigger hormonal responses in animals. This endocrine disrupting activity has been observed in mice and rat toxicological studies, and available epidemiological evidence indicates that these effects may be occurring in humans as a result of DDT exposure. The US Environmental Protection Agency states that DDT exposure damages the reproductive system and reduces reproductive success. These effects may cause developmental and reproductive toxicity:

* A review article in The Lancet states, "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation."[23]
* Human epidemiological studies suggest that exposure is a risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, and may harm a mother's ability to breast feed.[55] Some 21st century researchers argue that these effects may increase infant deaths, offsetting any anti-malarial benefits.[56] A 2008 study, however, failed to confirm the association between exposure and difficulty breastfeeding.[57]
* Several recent studies demonstrate a link between in utero exposure to DDT or DDE and developmental neurotoxicity in humans. For example, a 2006 University of California, Berkeley study suggests that children exposed while in the womb have a greater chance of development problems,[58] and other studies have found that even low levels of DDT or DDE in umbilical cord serum at birth are associated with decreased attention at infancy[59] and decreased cognitive skills at 4 years of age.[60] Similarly, Mexican researchers have linked first trimester DDE exposure to retarded psychomotor development.[61]
* Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures (generally from IRS).[62][63][64]
* Studies generally find that high blood DDT or DDE levels do not increase time to pregnancy (TTP.)[65] There is some evidence that the daughters of highly exposed women may have more difficulty getting pregnant (i.e. increased TTP).[66]
* DDT is associated with early pregnancy loss, a type of miscarriage. A prospective cohort study of Chinese textile workers found "a positive, monotonic, exposure-response association between preconception serum total DDT and the risk of subsequent early pregnancy losses."[67] The median serum DDE level of study group was lower than that typically observed in women living in homes sprayed with DDT.[68]
* A Japanese study of congenital hypothyroidism concluded that in utero DDT exposure may affect thyroid hormone levels and "play an important role in the incidence and/or causation of cretinism."[69] Other studies have also found the DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function.[70][71]

Occupational exposure in agriculture and malaria control has been linked to neurological problems (i.e. Parkinsons)[72] and asthma.[73]

DDT is suspected to cause cancer. The NTP classifies it as "reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen," the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as a "possible" human carcinogen, and the EPA classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as class B2 "probable" carcinogens. These evaluations are based mainly on the results of animal studies.[1][23]

There is evidence from epidemiological studies (i.e. studies in human populations) that indicates that DDT causes cancers of the liver,[23][35] pancreas[23][35] and breast.[35] There is mixed evidence that it contributes to leukemia,[35] lymphoma[35][74] and testicular cancer.[23][35][75] Other epidemiological studies suggest that DDT/DDE does not cause multiple myeloma,[23] or cancers of the prostate,[23] endometrium,[23][35] rectum,[23][35] lung,[35] bladder,[35] or stomach.[35]

The question of whether DDT or DDE are risk factors of breast cancer has been repeatedly studied. While individual studies conflict, the most recent reviews of all the evidence conclude that pre-puberty exposure increases the risk of subsequent breast cancer.[35][76]


Mosquito resistance

Resistance has greatly reduced DDT's effectiveness. WHO guidelines require that absence of resistance must be confirmed before using the chemical.[90] Resistance is largely due to agricultural use, in much greater quantities than required for disease prevention. According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by banning agricultural use and thereby slowing the spread of resistance, "it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[21]

Resistance was noted early in spray campaigns. Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied Anti-Malaria campaign, observed in 1956 that "resistance has appeared [after] six or seven years."[19] DDT has lost much of its effectiveness in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Turkey and Central America, and it has largely been replaced by organophosphate or carbamate insecticides, e.g. malathion or bendiocarb.[91]

In many parts of India, DDT has also largely lost its effectiveness.[92] Agricultural uses were banned in 1989, and its anti-malarial use has been declining. Urban use has halted completely.[93] Nevertheless, DDT is still manufactured and used,[94] and one study had concluded that "DDT is still a viable insecticide in indoor residual spraying owing to its effectivity in well supervised spray operation and high excito-repellency factor."[95]

DDT can still be effective against resistant mosquitoes,[97] and the avoidance of DDT-sprayed walls by mosquitoes is an additional benefit of the chemical.[95] For example, a 2007 study reported that resistant mosquitoes avoided treated huts. The researchers argued that DDT was the best pesticide for use in IRS (even though it did not afford the most protection from mosquitoes out of the three test chemicals) because the others pesticides worked primarily by killing or irritating mosquitoes—encouraging the development of resistance to these agents.[97] Others argue that the avoidance behavior slows the eradication of the disease.[98] Unlike other insecticides such as pyrethroids, DDT requires long exposure to accumulate a lethal dose; however its irritant property shortens contact periods. "For these reasons, when comparisons have been made, better malaria control has generally been achieved with pyrethroids than with DDT."[91] In India, with its outdoor sleeping habits and frequent night duties, "the excito-repellent effect of DDT, often reported useful in other countries, actually promotes outdoor transmission."[99]

Human exposure

People living in areas where DDT is used for IRS have high levels of the chemical and its breakdown products in their bodies. Compared to contemporaries living where DDT is not used, South Africans living in sprayed homes have levels that are several orders of magnitude greater.[35] Breast milk in regions where DDT is used against malaria greatly exceeds the allowable standards for breast-feeding infants.[101][102][103] These levels are associated with neurological abnormalities in babies.[91][101][102]

Most studies of DDT's human health effects have been conducted in developed countries where DDT is not used and exposure is relatively low. Many experts urge that alternatives be used instead of IRS.[23][35] Epidemiologist Brenda Eskenazi argues, "We know DDT can save lives by repelling and killing disease-spreading mosquitoes. But evidence suggests that people living in areas where DDT is used are exposed to very high levels of the pesticide. The only published studies on health effects conducted in these populations have shown profound effects on male fertility. Clearly, more research is needed on the health of populations where indoor residual spraying is occurring, but in the meantime, DDT should really be the last resort against malaria rather than the first line of defense."[104]

Illegal diversion to agriculture is also a concern, as it is almost impossible to prevent, and its subsequent use on crops is uncontrolled. For example, DDT use is widespread in Indian agriculture,[105] particularly mango production,[106] and is reportedly used by librarians to protect books.[107] Other example include Ethiopia, where DDT intended for malaria control is reportedly being used in coffee production,[108] and Ghana where it is used for fishing."[109][110] The residues in crops at levels unacceptable for export have been an important factor in recent bans in several tropical countries.[91] Adding to this problem is a lack of skilled personnel and supervision.[98]

Criticism of restrictions on DDT use

Critics claim that restricting DDT in vector control have caused unnecessary deaths due to malaria. Estimates range from hundreds of thousands,[111] to millions. Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007, "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children."[112] These arguments have been dismissed as "outrageous" by former WHO scientist Socrates Litsios. May Berenbaum, University of Illinois entomologist, says, "to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible."[83] Investigative journalist Adam Sarvana and others characterize this notion as a "myth" promoted principally by Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM).[113][114]

Criticisms of a DDT "ban" often specifically reference the 1972 US ban (with the erroneous implication that this constituted a worldwide ban and prohibited use of DDT in vector control). Reference is often made to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring even though she never pushed for a ban on DDT. John Quiggin and Tim Lambert wrote, "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted."[115] Carson actually devoted a page of her book to considering the relationship between DDT and malaria, warning of the evolution of DDT resistance in mosquitoes and concluding:

It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting [is the advice given in Holland by Dr Briejer in his capacity as director of the Plant Protection Service]. Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity."

It has also been alleged that donor governments and agencies have refused to fund DDT spraying, or made aid contingent upon not using DDT. According to a report in the British Medical Journal, use of DDT in Mozambique "was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT."[116] Roger Bate asserts, "many countries have been coming under pressure from international health and environment agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants: Belize and Bolivia are on record admitting they gave in to pressure on this issue from [USAID]."[117]

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been the focus of much criticism. While the agency is currently funding the use of DDT in some African countries,[118] in the past it did not. When John Stossel accused USAID of not funding DDT because it wasn't "politically correct," Anne Peterson, the agency's assistant administrator for global health, replied that "I believe that the strategies we are using are as effective as spraying with DDT ... So, politically correct or not, I am very confident that what we are doing is the right strategy."[119] USAID's Kent R. Hill states that the agency has been misrepresented: "USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted."[120] The Agency's website states that "USAID has never had a 'policy' as such either 'for' or 'against' DDT for IRS. The real change in the past two years [2006/07] has been a new interest and emphasis on the use of IRS in general—with DDT or any other insecticide—as an effective malaria prevention strategy in tropical Africa."[118] The website further explains that in many cases alternative malaria control measures were judged to be more cost-effective that DDT spraying, and so were funded instead.[121]

 

[Old Rocks]

First of all, where DDT was overused, not only was there major environmental damage, put eagles and other raptors on the endangered list in North America, but the mosquitoes developed an immunity to it. In Africa, the debate is not about whether to use DDT or not, but where using it is still effective.

But don't let facts get in the way of the continued lies concerning DDT. Not the "Conservative" way.

How much peer reviewed research would you like to see that states that DDT did not harm eagles or any other birds? And you have a lot of nerve claiming that DDT harmed eagles while you support wind farms which genuinely do cause eagle deaths by the thousands.

OK asshole. I call you on that. Link us some peer reviewed articles that state that DDT was harmless to eagles and other raptors. You made the statement, back it up.

 

[Coyote]

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD, back up your statement. Peer reviewed articles that state that DDT was harmless to raptors.