[South Africa’s] Health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, says cooperation between South Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique has led to a 90% reduction in new malaria infections in the three countries.
Tshabala-Msimang says this has been achieved through the use of Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), an agent that kills the malaria-carrying mosquitoes. She was speaking at one of the commissions of the People’s Assembly in Bizana, which was discussing the health situation in the country. […]
“… They wanted to tell us that we mustn’t use DDT for indoor residual spraying because it destroys vegetables and… fauna and we just said, ‘Look in Europe they conquered malaria because they used DDT’… The Italians told us that, ‘Don’t listen to what they are saying, we conquered malaria because we just killed the mosquitoes’ (sic),” said Tshabalala-Msimang.
Good for them.
Damn near time I’d say.
DDT spraying of swamps to reduce disease bearing insects is very effective. No one ever disputed this. But if you have to take water from the same source being sprayed (unfiltered or treated) the whole exercise becomes a trade off in lethality…short term gain…long term pain.
There ARE filtering systems that take 100% of water soluble chemicals out of drinking water but somehow I can’t see the governments of these malarial nations providing that level of public service or protection.
Not much of a choice. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
These mosquitos simply want to feed their families and have a better life and. Why are they subjected to chemical warfare? Call PETA now! These unfortunate mosquitos must be allowed to emigrate to Canada as refugees to escape genocide.
Greenpeace insiders have admitted that they only released studies that showed that DDT made the eggshells of wild birds thinner that would decimate wildfowl
reproduction but they withheld studies where shells were normal or thicker. Anyone who has raised chickens knows the shell thickness depends on the
amount of minerals, especially calcium, in the diet.
Special interest groups are notorious for only showing half of the truth.
A geologist from Texas informs me it takes 276 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol in Texas because of the intense irrigation needed for corn production.
The petroleum industry is exited because of the huge amounts of nitrogen fertilizer required as well.
Brought to you by the folks who would have us “comply” with Kyoto. Yes, special interest types, especially the radicalized time, will ignore any “science” that does not back up their argument, and exaggerate, skew, ouright lie about, “science” that does back them up.
Hilarious, let’s have an election over Kyoto. I would love that. The second Dion, or anyone else, says trading carbon credits is the road to compliance, will get absolutely creamed.
OT a little, but my prediction that all the opposition parties would make demands on Throne Speech, but conveniently enough of them will ensure government undefeated. Enviro issue will surely fall into this category.
Canadians aren’t stupid, they just don’t really care about politics between election campaigns. When they take even ten minutes to size up leaders and positions, the tarnished Liberal, silly NDP and irrelevant Bloc and Green brands will get steamrolled by a well-organized, experienced and heavily-funded Tory political machine, easily fending off the faux scandals and “blunders” in Afghanistan. The people won’t vote for nonsense like Kyoto, so, no election, or Tory majority.
Mystery Meat, your tongue-in-cheek is actually the truth.
Patrick Moore (Greenpeace founder) pointed out the fanaticism of the wacos a long, long time ago. 1994.
[These factors (the fall of Berlin Wall and the success of moderate environmentalists) have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good.}Patrick Moore
http://greenspirit.com/key_issues.cfm?msid=34
He wrote that almost a decade and a half ago and yet the Suzuki nut-cases were able, with the media’s help, to side track Canada and the world onto a path of religious enviro-kultism.
For years and years, Patrick Moore has been speaking out aginst the stupid DDT ban. He was right, Suzuki was wrong. Who does the CBC fawn over ?? The Dolt.
Sean S re: “Not much of a choice. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
or, for some in these circumstances, “Damned if you do, dead if you don’t.”
i read a quote once that in essence said it would be a good thing if more people died after banning ddt. one of the usual flock of human haters.
Tax man writes to Ricky Newfy: What is your net worth?
Ricky Newfy: It’s not my net; I borrowed/used Seamus O’Regan’s net.
The-Do-Gooders: Send $$$$$ free of charge to Ricky, et al.
…-
Spread the Net is a grassroots campaign co-founded by Belinda Stronach and Rick Mercer [Seamus O’Regan] in partnership with UNICEF Canada to raise funds to buy 500,000 anti-malarial mosquito bed nets at $10 each to be distributed free of charge to children in Liberia and Rwanda over the next two years. Malaria is the largest killer of children under five in Africa, with 3,000 children dying daily of the disease – one million every year. One insecticide treated bed net can protect a child for up to five years.
Donations to Spread the Net can be made at …-
*
Bear in mind, this is also the infamous Dr. Beetroot…
“Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang said this week she wanted
to give citizens choices, including traditional treatments like garlic,
lemons and beetroots, instead of championing anti-retroviral drugs.”
*
I disagree with the banning of DDT for localized indoor spraying. There were never any issues with that. The problem was the wide spread agricultural spraying that followed. Even then it was never the right of the west to assert as much influence as they did on other countries regarding their use of DDT. DDT can be conclusively linked to reductions in malaria, saving millions actually, but the same can’t be said for links to cancer.
All this said, its not my blog, but I think the “not dead enough” tag line that is attached to a series of postings here, demonstrates poor taste and often taints otherwise valid arguments.
Rachel Carson may have been wrong in the end with regards to her conclusions on DDT, but I doubt she held any sort of contempt for humanity that warrants the celebration of her death.
Culling the human population is exactly what ‘environmentalists’ want – a DDT ban is their best weapon for the task, that’s why they keep lobbying to keep it banned.
Rachel Carson – up there with Mao, Stalin and Hitler in the mass murderer stakes
Philanthropist and jlc….think before you post, those kind of statements are just plain stupid.
Then you are also calling The United Nations and Maurice Strong ‘just plain stupid’ — that part I agree with.
[Population Control – is high on the Green agenda, although the issue was low-profiled at the Earth Summit. Strict population control is high on the agenda of UNCED and the Green movement. As the Greens see it, there are too many people on Mother Earth (and the 5.4 billion will double in the next 10 to 15 years); the more people there are, the more pollution there is; the more highly- developed the people are, the more resources they consume. So, one of UNCED and the Greens’ chief goals is to restrict population growth by whatever means possible. Biology professor Garrett Harden (an influential Green spokesman) recently wrote:
“lt is a mistake to think that we can control the greed of mankind in the long run by an appeal to conscience. . . . The only way we can cherish and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinguishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon.”]
http://home.sprynet.com/~eastwood01/mstrong2.htm
Good for them. If the statistic is accurate, then a 90% reduction is very impressive. There’s no doubt as to the effectiveness of DDT for this application.
Having said that, I’m a little disappointed in Kate for headlining this entry with “Rachel Carson – Not Dead Enough”. This woman was a far cry from some pain-in-the-ass ecofeminist anarchist moonbat. She was not responsible for the lunacy that grew out of the environmental movement.
I would have thought that a woman like Kate would have given a few more props to a dedicated, well respected American marine biologist, especially considering the era that she grew up in.
Quotations of prominent environmentalist (and yahoos):
David Foreman, Earth First!: “We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.”
Prince Phillip of England: “If I could be reincarnated, I would return as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue: “We have wished, we eco-freaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age.”
Earth First! Newsletter: “If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS.”
Dr. Van den Bosch, University of California, chided others about their concern for “all those little brown people in poor countries” who might be saved if DDT was used.
David Graber, biologist, National Park Service: “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planet: Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Charles Wurster, chief scientist, Environmental Defense Fund: “There are too many people and [banning DDT] is as good a way to get rid of them as any.”
Dr. Paul Taylor, professor of philosophy, City College of New York: “Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens not only would the Earth’s Community of Life continue to exist but the ending of the human epoch on Earth would be greeted with a hearty ‘good riddance.'”
Pentti Linkola: “Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.”
Maurice Strong, secretary general, 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development: “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The groups conclusion is “no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. ”
Oh boy, I read this news today. Loved the South African government’s approach to it all.
90% reduction in new malaria cases! Eat that greenie weenies. You are, each one of you greenies, personaly responsible for the death of millions of children.
How do you feel?
Sometimes shit happens. Sometimes good happens.
Mystery nmeat, yiou have a fine collection of quotes there, that I shall share with friends and enemies alike. The money quote:
Charles Wurster, chief scientist, Environmental Defense Fund: “There are too many people and [banning DDT] is as good a way to get rid of them as any.”
Since when did EDF have any scientific credibility?
After the islamo-fascists, come the enviro-zeros.
Death to the infidel!
Death to the destoyer of life!
What do these two phrases have in common, and who are spouting them?
Clue: Green.
I LOVE this blog.
BUT….
“Rachel Carson – Not Dead Enough” ?????
I expect better.
Think before you post, Kate.
Mystery Meat: While it makes a good talking point I will point out that your quote from Charles Wurster can not be tracked down. It is widely quoted and referenced but the initial comment is supposed to come from a news conference. However no one has been able to track this conference down or is willing to swear that such a conference took place.
On the other hand there is an affidavit from Dr. Wurster denying that he has ever said any such thing.
Regards,
John
You guys are defending Rachel Carson are defending the original junk scientist y’know.
Good ol’ Rachel had to be aware the “science” on DDT was verrrry shaky, given that we can turn up all manner of contrary evidence available to her even decades later.
Like Margaret Mead, her intellectual honesty was not all it could be, and her legacy proves this out. Mead’s work helped lead to the current nadir of American anthropology, Carson’s lead to the world-wide ban on DDT.
The work was crap in both cases, Carson’s legacy just has a higher body count than Mead’s.
Phantom: In the interests of accuracy, there was never a world-wide ban on DDT.
Regards,
John
Ok, ok, it was mostly Europe pushing the DDT ban on Third World countries — and is still penalizing them today with trade restrictions.
mmmmm, sounds similiar to Kyoto.
http://timlambert.org/category/science/ddt/
For those who are not too reality challeged on this issue
Hey this is good too . . . .
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186
Notice how the enviro-fascists want to depopulate the planet but never lead by example?
If the green leftards just killed themselves we’d all be better off.
While not an official “world wide ban”, the results were about the same. We nicely eradicated malaria in europe and north america, THEN we decided that DDT was bad. And since WE decided it was bad we added caveats to our trade and agricultural assistance that said you don’t get any help unless you agree to not use DDT. While not a “ban” its effect was the same.
As for Carson, in all likelyhood she wasn’t going for a DDT ban to thin out the population on the planet, she was just worried about the birds. But this campaign of hers has directly resulted in the deaths of Millions. So she didn’t MEAN to do it, but that’s cold comfort to the dead. We can’t exactly celebrate all her wonderful achievements without noting (and deriding) the fact that she has a direct link to the preventable deaths of millions. Hence “not dead enough” while crude, is quite apt.
Ok John C., “de facto” world wide ban. Better?
If there is a Hell, I would only wish Rachel Carson were there.
Chris @ 1239
Crude and completly refuted in the link above your post.
But hey don’t let facts or reality get in the way of a popular trope . .