Malaria Treatment FAQ:
… because environmentalists refused to let it be used in limited ways?
… 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.
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
It is still banned in the US, and rightfully so…-
malaria almost gone
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.
If they know then they sure aren’t talking about it…I tried to tell people about this months ago.
all environmentalists are not liberals and all liberals are not environmentalists (i hope, not that you can prove otherwise). we are all Americans, or have you forgot? has it really come down to red and blue for you? lets unite, not divide.
Did you know that the American Bald Eagle is now off of the endangered species list? Do you know what chemical put the American Bald Eagle on the endangered species list?
Hell I guess you think that lead in Chinese paint ain’t nothing but a liberal conspiracy.
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.
keep it out of U S A
Thank God for liberals that refuse to allow big business to jeopardize our safety in the name of Profit
And how is that the libs fault? I guess in your world, if you care about the world, you’re a lib.
where do you live? i would be glad come and spray your yard at no charge to you either for labor or materials to “protect” you and your family with the wonders of DDT….
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The libs don’t care about how many people are killed because of their policies. Just as long as they get what they want. If they care about saving lives they would have.
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.