Recently I read David McCullough's book on the history of the Panama Canal: "Path Between the Seas".
I was shocked to find that two American Physicians were able to reduce malaria and yellow fever to nil by simply isolating patients, screening windows and controlling open water in populated areas. This was over 100 years ago and DDT had not even been invented yet. While DDT may be temporarily effective, what happens when Africa is left with DDT resistant anophoeles? David David M Bryant Ph D University of New Hampshire Environmental Education Program Durham, NH 03824 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 978-356-1928 On Jul 20, 2006, at 11:59 AM, Dave Thomson wrote: > This is one of Forbes' diatribes: > http://www.forbes.com/columnists/columnists/global/2006/0417/011.html > > And here is a quote: > "... AIDS and Malaria. Africa has been decimated by disease, > particularly AIDS and malaria. More needs to be done to educate people > there about AIDS, as well as to get the necessary medicines to > treat it. > Malaria kills more than a million people a year, primarily children. > Yet, thanks to death-blind environmentalists, Western nations have > pressured African countries not to use the most effective weapon > against > malaria--DDT. Very small amounts of DDT judiciously applied to and in > dwellings would virtually eradicate malaria. During a severe outbreak > several years ago South Africa defied the naysayers and used DDT. > Result: The incidence of malaria plummeted. ..." > > > It surprised me to find out that DDT is still produced by US > manufacturers domestically and sold abroad. I was in Mexico about a > decade ago and government workers came through our palapas spraying > DDT. > I don't know if they still use it. > > If I recall correctly, here in the San Francisco Bay area the local > vector control districts use a species-specific mite to combat > mosquitoes. They are so effective that the vector ecologist told me > that he cannot get an adequate sample size for mosquito population > estimates... meaning the treatments are highly effective. > > So I would conclude there are highly effective alternatives to > DDT. Why > the push for DDT then? In Forbes case, the reason may indeed be > that he > has investments in DDT producers, or perhaps it is plain > ignorance. I'd > be interested in what the mosquito biologists have to say. > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of stan moore > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:28 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Forbes calling for renewed use of DDT to fight malaria > > In his magazine, Forbes, Steve Forbes has again argued for the > return of > the > use of DDT to battle malaria in Africa. Of course, there are other > techniques available for fighting the disease, but perhaps not with > the > same > prospect for return of investment to those who make their living > investing > in pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals. > > Here is a partial quote from Forbes magazine this month -- take > note of > the > wording and ask yourself if the environmental impacets of DDT were > only > "alleged" as Forbes himself alleges: > > The Gates Foundation has set itself the exciting challenges of finding > cures > for a number of diseases.... Will Bill Gates infuse these areas > with the > > same entrepreneurial spirit that he so magnificently applied to high > tech? > On the disease front his organization can quickly save the lives of > hundreds > of thousands of people each year by forcefully pushing to once > again use > DDT > in the fight against malaria. The chemical was banned in most of the > world > for the alleged harm it did to the environment
