>Sigh. >Most of these places allready have a marginally viable ecosystem. >DDT, used properly, is not much of a threat. However, this >effectively means not only providing DDT, but providing the people to >spray it. This is much, much harder.
But, it's been done fairly effectively. It doesn't have to be done often....once a year per house will do an enormous amount of good. It's been done in places like Indonesia and South Africa with great sucess. Let me focus on one particular country where I know something about the infrastructure: Zambia. My daughter Neli is from there, has worked as an IMF intern there, and her family is fairly well connected to the church structure there. We've talked about AIDs prevention, a much tougher problem, and she's indicated to me that getting the church infrastructure involved is essential for AIDs prevention. She's also familair with the extensive NGO effort there, and elsewhere in Africa. She has been and is involved with American organizations involved in aid in Africa. If I ask her about whether/how such a spraying plan could be implemented, would you accept her understanding (based on her understanding the social structures within her country as well as the actions of governments and NGOs), or would you argue against that insight. If you can assume that the people will accept that their safety is increased by having their houses sprayed, then I think setting up the mechanism for once a year spraying would be straightforward....as long as the NGO supervises the operation and works with local groups. I bet Neli could plan such a program in a few months. It's within her skill set. >The moment you provide a >pesticide which is effective and no threat to humans, otherwise, it >will be sprayed widely. And that, and the resultant ecosystem damage, >has frightening potentials for area which are allready marginal. DDT has been used widely around the world, including the US. From what I've seen, there are mixed indications that DDT may pose a risk to raptors. There had not been a major impact on the US ecosystem from DDT >So no, the >alternatives, which don't need trained people to spray every drop, >are not "less effective". OK, so the significant amount of data on it's sucessful use in countries where it is used is meaningless because? >And no, I'm not a treehugging backwards-looking loonie either. I didn't think you were....but I just don't understand why claims of potential future damage that are not science based should outweigh actual preventable human deaths that run to a million/year. This technique has worked in S. Africa recently, and the POPs who insist on alternate techniques have not put forth evidence indicating harm to the environment as a result. If one can make the assumption that, if such damage occured, they would not hesitate to publicize it, then one can take this silence as indicating that they cannot find such damage. Dan M. -------------------------------------------------------------------- myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
