Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Being Green Means Never Saying You’re Sorry for Killing Millions

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Robert Tracinski tells us why the greenies will never admit that they were dead wrong (pun intended) about DDT, even though their mistakes have led to the death of millions:

So why not just admit that the hysteria whipped up over DDT was wrong? Because this was the founding issue of the environmentalist movement. Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” was the first book to convince the common man that “chemicals” are scary and that modern industry and technology were going to destroy us. Banning DDT was the first triumph of the environmentalist movement in using political pressure to override scientific skepticism and impose its agenda by force.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/27/yes-you-can-blame-the-ddt-ban-for-zika/

 

Comments
I have heard that the first world threatened the third world with loss of aid unless DDT was banned. Since the money was more important than the suffering and death of the weak and voiceless, the choice was made. Mass hysteria leads to horrible policy. It is also totally hypocritical for a country which has conquered a plague to pressure those who still suffer to ignore the means it used. Carson lied; millions died. God will distribute the responsibility justly. To Ruckelshaus and the rest as well.NatanElias
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Clown Fish, I am not arguing over semantics. You made a false statement and dared someone to show that you were wrong. So, I did. It is the person who has been refuted that has lost the argument. Meanwhile, you claim to have been misunderstood. So, I am asking you to say exactly what you mean. It appears that you received incomplete information from an anti-DDT website without really understanding what it is that you were reading. What else can I do for you? I provided all the likely interpretations of what you might have meant, so all you have to do is pick one.
Barry is accusing Rachel Carson and environmentalists for millions of malaria deaths.
And, of course, he is right. They are responsible.
How many African countries have, or ever had, a ban on the use of DDT for disease control?
Irrelevant. They didn't cause their own shortage of DDT. It was the anti-DDT campaign that prevented most African countries from taking the measures necessary to save lives. The environmentalists claimed that DDT would harm nature more than it would help people. As a result, millions died. It's a simple as that.
Or, refute the other eight facts that I am claiming
If I refute them, you will likely respond the same way you did when I refuted fact #1--revise and repackage them until they pass inspection and then carry on as if that is what you had meant all along. Besides, all your numbered claims are either distortions or irrelevancies.StephenB
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
Arguing over semantics rather than substance is a sure sign that you have lost the argument. So? People ought not do that because it displeases you. And why should anyone care about that, exactly?Mung
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
Stephen, arguing over semantics rather than substance is a sure sign that you have lost the argument. Barry is accusing Rachel Carson and environmentalists for millions of malaria deaths. How many African countries have, or ever had, a ban on the use of DDT for disease control? Or, refute the other eight facts that I am claiming.clown fish
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
So, when you (Clown Fish) said...
DDT has never been banned for disease control.
, ...what you really meant was that DDT has been internationally banned for agricultural reasons, and it has also been banned by individual countries for disease control, but it has never been banned internationally for disease control? And you think that we were supposed to interpret your earlier unqualified claim as if it had contained all your later qualifications. Is that correct? Which, then, is the case? Are you saying that every one of the world's 196 countries (without exception) banned DDT for agricultural reasons and that only 26 (or could the number be as high as 68) of those countries banned DDT for both agricultural reasons and disease control? Or, are you saying that most (not all) of the world's countries banned DDT for agricultural reasons and only 26 countries banned DDT for disease control? (If so, how many of the world's 196 countries banned DDT for agricultural reasons?). Or, are you saying that some internationally agency has the power to ban DDT for all countries?StephenB
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
DDT was banned internationally for agriculture. It was never banned for disease control. You can twist what I say, but it does not change anything. Indivudual governments can, and do, ban chemicals for whatever reason they see fit. My province has banned 24D for residential weed control. But there is no international ban. The US has banned Kinder eggs. Canada has banned hormone treated meat.clown fish
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Clown Fish
We were talking about international bans.
No, we were not. Your statement was clear:
Fact 1: DDT has never been banned for disease control.
This is made even more evident by your previous statement:
Perhaps you can find me the document that banned DDT for malaria control. I assure you that you won’t find it because it doesn’t exist. The ban was for agricultural use.
Clearly, you are saying that DDT was banned for agricultural reasons only. That is not true. In order to avoid my clear refutation, you revised your claim. This, by the way, is why I won't address any of your other claims until you concede the point. What would be the point of correcting you if you move the target again? Here is the way is supposed to be done. Say something like this: "StephenB, you have a point. Not only has DDT been banned for agricultural reasons, it has also been banned for disease control." Then, you can try a new tack, such as, "Still, my broader point stands,".....It's much better than digging your hole deeper and deeper.StephenB
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
StephenB, we were talking about international bans. Any outright DDT bans have been at the country level, largely in countries where Malaria has been eradicated, or in countries where it is ineffective. You are really hung up on objective vs subjective. This is a thread about DDT and the devil incarnate, Rachel Carson. Please don't try to hijack the thread.clown fish
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Clown Fish
To add to #21: Fact 8: See # 37 Fact 8: mosquito resistance to DDT had been a problem long before Rachel Carso wrote her book.
Why do you move on to "fact" #8 when you have not yet answered the refutation to your fact #1. CF
Fact 1: DDT has never been banned for disease control.
From Wikipedia on DDT–: 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968[43] followed by Norway and Sweden in 1970, Germany and the US in 1972, but not in the United Kingdom until 1984. By 1991 total bans, including for disease control, were in place in at least 26 countries; for example Cuba in 1970, CF
But, since these don’t fit in with the demonic evolutionist nature of the OP, I assume that Barry will simply say that these are lies as well.
OK, good. Let's get back to your much larger problem: Subjectivism. Are lies a violation of objective moral standards or are they just personal subjective opinions to which everyone is entitled. Whatever happened to your *live and let live*--*there is no objective truth* subjectivism? How is it possible to misrepresent the truth with a lie if there is no such thing as the truth.StephenB
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
I thought we had been over this ground before so I looked up a post I remembered writing back in November of last year: ********** Let’s try to clarify a few points since some people seem to be hard of reading.
1. There was no ban on spraying DDT.
Where did I write anything like that? The ban on the use of DDT allowed for its continued use in vector control – killing mosquitoes – until better alternatives could be found. From the Wikipedia entry on DDT:
In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968[41] then in Norway and Sweden in 1970, Germany and the United States in 1972, but not in the United Kingdom until 1984. By 1991 total bans on the use of DDT, including in disease control, were in place in at least 26 countries; for example Cuba in 1970, Singapore in 1984, Chile in 1985 and the Republic of Korea in 1986.[42] 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, the convention exempts public health use within World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines from the ban.[43] Resolution 60.18 of the World Health Assembly commits the World Health Organization to the Stockholm Convention’s aim of reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of DDT.[44] 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.”[45]
No one is denying that DDT can be – and is – effective against malaria but the problem is that over-use leads to the emergence of resistant strains of mosquitoes, just as excessive use of antibiotics has led to resistant strains of bacteria – all of which was predictable on the basis of evolutionary theory. It’s harder to see why a designer would have arranged things thus. Again, from the Wikipedia entry:
WHO’s anti-malaria campaign of the 1950s and 1960s relied heavily on DDT and the results were promising, though temporary. Experts tie the resurgence of malaria to multiple factors, including poor leadership, management and funding of malaria control programs; poverty; civil unrest; and increased irrigation. The evolution of resistance to first-generation drugs (e.g. chloroquine) and to insecticides exacerbated the situation.[22][86] Resistance was largely fueled by often unrestricted agricultural use. Resistance and the harm both to humans and the environment led many governments to restrict or curtail the use of DDT in vector control as well as agriculture.[34] In 2006 the WHO reversed a longstanding policy against DDT by recommending that it be used as an indoor pesticide in regions where malaria is a major problem.[87] Once the mainstay of anti-malaria campaigns, as of 2008 only 12 countries used DDT, including India and some southern African states,[83] though the number is expected to rise
In some areas resistance has greatly reduced DDT’s effectiveness. WHO guidelines require that absence of resistance must be confirmed before using the chemical.[96] Resistance is largely due to agricultural use, in much greater quantities than required for disease prevention. 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.”[32] Resistance has been detected in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Turkey and Central America, and it has largely been replaced by organophosphate or carbamate insecticides, e.g. malathion or bendiocarb.[97] In many parts of India, DDT has also largely lost its effectiveness.[98] Agricultural uses were banned in 1989 and its anti-malarial use has been declining. Urban use has halted completely.[99] Nevertheless, DDT is still manufactured and used,[100] 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.
And for a different Ugandan perspective, there is this article from the UK’s Independent newspaper by Ellady Myumbi, Secretary General, Uganda Network on Toxic Free Malaria Control (UNETMAC)
I was compelled to write this article after reading an opinion titled “DDT use would save many lives in Uganda” published in the New Vision of June 27, 2013 by Prof. George B Kirya. I agree with Prof. Kirya that malaria is a major problem in Uganda but I reject his argument that DDT use can help eradicate it. The spiraling death rate from the malaria mortality rates in Uganda and Africa in general are not due to lack of DDT but other factors. Malaria is not like HIV/AIDS, Ebola or SARS which do not have known cures. It must, therefore, be confronted with the best available technologies and solutions and DDT is not such a solution. Appropriate malaria control measures should be anchored in eliminating the parasite from the human host while promoting personal hygiene and better sanitation practices. DDT is not a medical intervention and neither a preventive measure. In most cases, it is never advisable to solve a problem with another complex problem. DDT and its metabolites is a known endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC), a persistent organic pollutant (POP), a reprotoxin and a carcinogen. Previous and recent studies conducted in areas where DDT has been used for malaria vector control even at low doses reveal negative human health impacts. DDT use, therefore, will put the health of Ugandans and our already deteriorating environment at a great risk.
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), an international agreement aiming at the elimination of organic pollutants which accumulate in the environment, allows the use of DDT indoor residual spraying (IRS) for disease vector control such as malaria vectors only when there are no safe, affordable, effective and local available alternatives. Even then, the use must be in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Uganda and more than 170 other countries signed and ratified the Stockholm Convention. But the inventory report by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) on POPs reveals that, Uganda has no capacity to use DDT to the standards required by the WHO.
Impassioned denunciations of the late Rachel Carson are both unhelpful and a straightforward Alinskyite demonization of someone who is no longer around to defend themselves in print or in court against defamation. She is no more responsible for the millions of deaths from malaria than is Charles Darwin for the millions who were killed in the Nazi Holocaust. **********Seversky
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
DDT was never used in a concerted eradication effort in most of Africa because the experts (scientists, not environmentalists) knew that it would not be effective. Rather it was, and is, being used as one of a multi part strategy to control it. Eradication efforts using DDT in many western countries were possible because of a combination of land use practices, draining wetlands and the seasonal mosquito reproductive cycle. DDT is not effective in many tropical and subtropical areas because of the continuous reproductive cycle of the mosquitos, the serious lack of resources and government corruption.clown fish
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Bob: For those who worry about things like evidence, the piece by Dr Sam Zaramba is from the WSJ in 2007. The quote given by velikovskys is from a Ugandan paper, the Sunday Monitor, from 2010. Sorry should have included that, thanks.velikovskys
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
To add to #21: Fact 8: See # 37 Fact 8: mosquito resistance to DDT had been a problem long before Rachel Carso wrote her book. But, since these don't fit in with the demonic evolutionist nature of the OP, I assume that Barry will simply say that these are lies as well.clown fish
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: " It also seems that it can be used in successful malaria eradication." Actually, the experts say that it is only effective in eradication in developed economies with a high standard of living and mature infrastructure.clown fish
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
To all of the trolls trying to hijack this thread and turn it into a discussion of the theodicy. No.Barry Arrington
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Roy, passing by and noted a specific point. Whoever told you there is only one relevant or possible designer involved in the history of our planet? Does biological weapon mean something? KF PS: I do think on glances above that some lowering of the volume will help. It is clear from my memory that DDT was cast as a villain of the piece and that it was sharply restricted, banned in many contexts, taken out. There was very little discussion in the general media that shaped public opinion regarding likely consequences for malaria. I recall a lot more on thinned out eggshells of birds and half life of chemicals in the environment. It also seems that it can be used in successful malaria eradication. We need to ask ourselves hard questions on the balances of policies in the name of progress. Unintended consequences can be awful, and must be faced -- a fact that was known a long time ago. So we need to be a lot more cautious about what we present as scientifically established findings and policy recommendations, also options and consequences. DDT and malaria is only one of many cases where there has been or may well be a the rest of the story.kairosfocus
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Is there any reason to believe that Rachel Carson or the environmental movement set out to kill millions or willfully ignored clear evidence that such would be a consequence of their research? Did Rachel Carson, at any point, possess the executive power to ensure that DDT was deployed wherever in the world it was needed? Are there malaria control measures that could be applied such that, even of DDT had never been invented, it would be possible to greatly reduce the incidence of the disease? Is it not true that these millions of deaths can, with much more justification, be attributed to human indifference, incompetence and corruption rather than to the work of one researcher?Seversky
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
For those who worry about things like evidence, the piece by Dr Sam Zaramba is from the WSJ in 2007. The quote given by velikovskys is from a Ugandan paper, the Sunday Monitor, from 2010. I also found an interesting interview with Dr. Zaramba from 2010, where he advocates for integrated disease management and tailoring solutions to the local situation, all of which sounds sensible and I think is in line with the consensus. He doesn't mention DDT, although there was an opportunity to do so. Instead, he says
My number one priority would be human resources. They don’t have to be doctors specifically. We need all different types of health care providers. We need trained physicians of course, but also clinical staff and paramedics, too.
But most importantly, this year he won the Smile Senior’s Golf tournament at the Uganda Golf Club in Kitante.Bob O'H
May 29, 2016
May
05
May
29
29
2016
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
CF: “By the way, I am awaiting any valid refutation of the facts I presented at #21.” Let's take them one at a time: Clown Fish
Fact 1: DDT has never been banned for disease control.
From Wikipedia on DDT--: 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968[43] followed by Norway and Sweden in 1970, Germany and the US in 1972, but not in the United Kingdom until 1984. By 1991 total bans, including for disease control, were in place in at least 26 countries; for example Cuba in 1970,StephenB
May 28, 2016
May
05
May
28
28
2016
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
Barry: "And I am awaiting any valid refutation of the fact that the environmental movement has the blood of millions of African children on its hands." See #21. By the way, deleting comments? That speaks volumes. [UDEitors: Yes, it speaks to the fact that there is only so much trollish behavior that we will tolerate.]clown fish
May 28, 2016
May
05
May
28
28
2016
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
CF: "By the way, I am awaiting any valid refutation of the facts I presented at #21." And I am awaiting any valid refutation of the fact that the environmental movement has the blood of millions of African children on its hands.Barry Arrington
May 28, 2016
May
05
May
28
28
2016
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Let’s not be too hard on Clown Fish. Subjectivists, after all, lack all moral conviction, so they are incapable of feeling righteous indication. If there is no such thing as right and wrong, then there can be no wrongs to be righted. To be sure, subjectivists become miffed when someone calls an abortionist a “murderer,” but the murder itself--the violent invasion, the scalding to death, the slicing up of baby parts—moves them not in the least. Their ire is reserved for the moral reformer. You will never find a subjectivist marching into hell for a heavenly cause; his aim is to uncover the judgmentalism that may be lurking in the marcher’s vocabulary The record shows that environmentalists stumped for a premature ban on DDT and tragedy followed. Still, we must make allowances for subjectivist priorities: Yes, says Clown Fish, millions of children died needlessly, and that is unfortunate; but great danger is looming: Someone, somewhere is considering the death penalty for homosexuals, Now that’s just too much.StephenB
May 28, 2016
May
05
May
28
28
2016
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
V: "Maybe DDT is not the whole story." Understatement of the year. But these are the guys that Barry prefers to listen to, over the facts that have been presented. The malaria issue is not as simple as DDT. DDT is only one of the factors for it not being prevalent in North America. And DDT without the other factors, would not have made much of a difference. Anyone who says that DDT does not have significant environmental impact is simply lying. Anyone who says it is not persistant in the environment is lying. Anyone who says that it does not indiscriminately kill beneficial insects is lying. Anyone who says that it does not bioaccumulate in fatty tissue is lying. Anyone who says that it does not travel long distances in the atmosphere is lying. Anyone who says that mosquitos have not developed resistance to DDT is lying. Malaria is a huge problem in Africa. DDT has a role in irradicating it. But it is not a magic bullet. Without significant financial and logistic support from the west, and a significant reduction in the corruption of many African countries, and significant infrastructure changes, all off the DDT in the world will not help.clown fish
May 28, 2016
May
05
May
28
28
2016
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Barry: "OK, CF, you are repeating your environmentalist talking points. Good boy." So, you now consider facts that you have made no effort to provide evidence to dispute as "talking points". How pathetic is that? "The environmentalists were successful in banning/reducing the use of DDT in Africa." In spite of the fact that DDT use has increased consistently since the seventies. That doesn't sound very successful to me. "Anyone who denies this is a liar." So, anyone who provides facts that conflict with what you are saying is a liar. I have never heard of that definition of liar before. But, if that is all you can do to support your false claims, I guess you have to stick with it. By the way, I am awaiting any valid refutation of the facts I presented at #21.clown fish
May 28, 2016
May
05
May
28
28
2016
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
OK, CF, you are repeating your environmentalist talking points. Good boy. Here are the cold hard facts. The environmentalists were successful in banning/reducing the use of DDT in Africa. Millions of needless deaths ensued. Anyone who denies this is a liar. You can stop repeating your talking points.Barry Arrington
May 28, 2016
May
05
May
28
28
2016
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
"The retirement of Dr Zaramba depletes an already embattled ministry that has lost many of its most senior officials in the recent past to international appointments and a litany of alleged corruption cases. Only last week, three senior managers of the Malaria Control Programme were arrested and charged with the alleged negligence and theft of drugs worth Shs2 billion. The trio currently at Luzira Prison pending hearing of their cases are Dr Richard Ndyomugenyi, the malaria programme manager; his deputy Dr Myers Lugemwa and Mr Martin Shibeki, the programme administrator. Maybe DDT is not the whole storyvelikovskys
May 28, 2016
May
05
May
28
28
2016
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Barry: "Clown Fish. Every word you write is an outright lie or a major distortion." You are basing your entire argument on the statements of a government official in a corrupt government. A government that seriously considered the execution of homosexuals as a moral act. Are you sure that you want to lump yourself in with that crowd? From the seventies until the Stockholm agreement, there was no ban on the use of DDT in Africa. And it was used. Following the Stockholm agreement, the use of DDT increased further. It was never at the levels that were used in the US, or in US controlled areas in other countries, but that had nothing to do with environmentalists. It was not used in Africa to the same extent for the same reason that other malaria controls in Africa have not been effective. It cost money and the western countries don't care as much about Africa as they do about western countries. Again you call me a liar without once addressing the facts that I listed. Is that because you can't address them but don't want to admit it? How pathetic. I have not once said that DDT should not be used in Africa. And the facts are that it is being used. And the fact is that the mosquitos are becoming get resistant to it. And the fact is that it is a persistent, bio accumulating chemical that does environmental damage. So, are you going to again ignore all of this and call me more names, or are you going to act as a mature adult and actually address my points? Or are you just going to silently ban me and declare victory?clown fish
May 28, 2016
May
05
May
28
28
2016
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
CF said:
How do you rationalize your claims against the fact that DDT use in Africa has actually increased since the Stockholm convention?
The de facto worldwide ban on DDT started in the mid 1970's, the Stockholm pesticide treaty went into effect in May, 2004. How much DDT was being used in Africa prior to the release of "Silent Spring", and how much is being used currently? Saying that the use of DDT since the treaty in 2005 has risen in Africa is entirely irrelevant to the argument that the de facto ban that has been in effect since the 70's generated the unnecessary death of millions, and doesn't even matter currently unless you mean, and can show, that current use rivals usage in the 40's and 50's.
And that one of the problems that they are now being faced with in malaria prone areas is resistance to DDT. But, if it makes you feel better to demonize a long dead marine biologist, go right ahead.
The time it takes for a mosquito population to develop resistance to DDT is 4-7 years; the time it takes to eradicate malaria in a given area is 3 years, given that a a full program of widespread use of DDT for the purpose of impacting as much of the mosquito population as possible in as large a geographical reagion as possible is utilized (which is how several countries were able to eradicate malaria by the time "Silent Spring" was published). If there is increased resistance to DDT today in areas of the world that still use DDT, it's due to the highly restricted use of DDT over the past 50 years. Highly restricted, localized application of DDT (as it is done now) cannot impact a nearly sufficient quantity of the mosquito population in any given geographical area, over the necessary time frame, to eradicate malaria. All they are doing with vector use is, essentially, breeding resistant mosquitoes.William J Murray
May 28, 2016
May
05
May
28
28
2016
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Clown Fish. Every word you write is an outright lie or a major distortion. How do I know? Because millions upon millions of Africans died as a result of the Western environmental colonialists decried by the Ugandan Minister of Health, and if what you write were true that would not have happened. Let’s break down what the minister said:
Though Africa’s sad experience with colonialism ended in the 1960s, a lethal vestige remains: malaria. It is the biggest killer of Ugandan and all African children. Yet it remains preventable and curable . . . Now they must honor this promise by supporting African independence in the realm of disease control. We must be able to use Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane — DDT.
Dear readers, Clown Fish implies that Western environmental colonialists have not prevented Uganda from using DDT to control the mosquitos that spread malaria. Here is some simple logic, if what Clown Fish says is true, the Minster of Health would not have written that. But he did write that. Therefore, we can be certain that Clown Fish is a liar. Clown Fish says or implies there are alternative pesticides just as good as DDT. Dr. Zaramba talks about the use of some of those alternatives and then he writes:
But DDT lasts longer, costs less and is more effective against malaria-carrying mosquitoes than Icon. It functions as spatial repellent to keep mosquitoes out of homes, as an irritant to prevent them from biting, and as a toxic agent to kill those that land. The repellency effect works without physical contact. And because we will never use the chemical in agriculture, DDT also makes mosquitoes less likely to develop resistance.
Again, CF is shown to be a liar. Clown Fish says that DDT is environmentally harmful. Dr. Zaramba:
after decades of exhaustive scientific review, DDT has been shown to not only be safe for humans and the environment, but also the single most effective anti-malarial agent ever invented. Nothing else at any price does everything it can do. That is why the World Health Organization (WHO) has once again recommended using DDT wherever possible against malaria, alongside insecticidal nets and effective drugs.
Again, CF is a liar. CF says DDT was never banned by law. Dr. Zaramaba:
Although Uganda’s National Environmental Management Authority has approved DDT for malaria control, Western environmentalists continue to undermine our efforts and discourage G-8 governments from supporting us.
Here CF’s statement is misleading and a distortion. There has never been a de jure ban. The ban has always been de facto. The Westerners have told the Africans, stop using DDT or commit economic suicide. Distortion = lie. So, again, CF, is shown to be a shameless liar. Millions have died. CF defends those who killed them. That’s the bottom line.Barry Arrington
May 28, 2016
May
05
May
28
28
2016
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Barry, you keep accusing me of lying, and you keep throwing ad hominems at me, rather than actually addressing what I have said. There are several words that describe that sort of pathology, but I obviously have more class than you. Let's list some of the things, and a couple others, that you are accusing me of lying about. Fact 1: DDT has never been banned for disease control. Fact 2: DDT use has increased in Africa since the "so called" ban. Fact 3: mosquitoes are developing resistance to DDT. Fact 4: There are other insecticides that are effective against mosquitoes. We use them every year in Ottawa for the control of West Nile virus. Fact 5: DDT wasn't the only reason for the decline in malaria in North America. We erradicated it in Canada long before DDT was discovered, largely by draining swamps and other sources of standing water around populated areas. Fact 6: DDT is a broad spectrum insecticide, killing beneficial as well as detrimental Arthropods. Fact 6: DDT is a persistent chemical that bioaccumulate throughout the food chain, causing negative affects. Fact 7: Humans are at or near the top of the food chain. Rather than simply claiming that I am lying about these, why don't you try something that is apparently foreign to you. Provide evidence that these are lies. If I am lying, it should be very easy to prove so. From the start, I have said that we have dropped the ball big time on malaria prevention. Environmental policies play a part in this tragedy. But to blame it all on this completely ignores the fact that the foreign policies of western countries towards Africa have been horrendous. But feel free to ignore all of this and continue to falsely accuse me of lying. It is definitely easier to blame a dead marine biologists and the environmentalists that you despise rather than address the real problems, that both the left and right are guilty of.clown fish
May 28, 2016
May
05
May
28
28
2016
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply