This quote, from Andrew Kenny's article in The Spectator last year records the reaction of an environmentalist when told that banning DDT in Africa would kill millions:
I have heard not one word of pity or regret from any green organisation about the vast loss of human life caused by the ban on DDT. On the contrary, they seem to regard it as a glorious triumph. The likely reason was spelled out with chilling clarity by Charles Wurster of the Environmental Defence Fund in the USA in 1971 when it was pointed out to him that DDT saved the lives of poor people in poor countries. Hc said: 'So what? People are the main cause of our problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as anything.'
The spirit of that tells you all you need to know about the green movement's priorities. He must be delighted to think that fifty million people have died from the DDT ban. We made our own countries safe first, then banned it before the poor of Africa and Asia could benefit. How's that for social justice. Read Kenny's full article here.
But for those who really believed it was dangerous on the basis of Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' and a truthy feeling in the pit of their stomachs when they heard about dying sea-birds-- I hope you feel ashamed to read this. Even the UN can't ignore the truth that DDT is safe, effective and a life-saver on a grand scale any longer. And their press release admitting it is here. The precautionary principle can kill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
i hate you you suck
I agree with you and people that make comments like "I hate you you suck" as the person on this blog--are not open to saving the lives of the poor. I have a project in Africa and I have studied and studied this subject. I have received so much hatred for my believes, when if people would be open to listening to the facts they would see that we are only trying to save lives. Amen to you for your opinions. Never give up. think humanity
How dare you post such a deceitful, tactless statement. In India, where DDT is still manufactured, children are being born with maiming disfigurements. People are dying of cancer, all because of overexposure to DDT. You speak as though those who try to work to make the world better for ALL creatures who exist in it are blind and dumb. You say that we made our own counrty safe first, but did not even give poorer countries a chance to do the same. Well, we stopped using DDT in the 1970s, and our country is still safe. Our country used DDT at a time when there was no research, and this was the best product available. We have much better technology in this day and age, and poorer countries SHOULD benefit from our mistakes, rather than hinder their economic growth with teratogenic poisons.
My father was a pest control company owner from 1951 til 1975. He used to be bathed in DDT on a daily basis. My father just died last year at the age of 90. As a child I used to run through clouds of DDT when the trucks would come through my neighborhood spraying. There has never ever been any scientific proof that DDT has ever had any ill effects on any human being. It doesn't cause cancer it doesn't kill mammals. It can be deadly to fish, but the organophosphates that we now use in place of DDT are FAR more toxic to humans, fish, birds, etc. I've concluded that the green movement could care less about people they just care about their cause. Don't confuse them with facts.
Sorry but you are very misinformed because DDT was never banned for use against malaria. Under the Stockholm convention is was exempt from restrictions as it is to this day (the Stockholm convention explains this fully). Any country that wants to use DDT for malarial control is free to do so but most choose not to because DDT resistant mosquitoes developed as far back as the 1950's so it has little effect in many countries. The only thing DDT was restricted for use on was agricultural pests (i.e. not malaria). By restricting its use in agriculture, it increased its usefulness in malarial control. As a scientist who works in this field I know what I am talking about. Blogs like this are anti-science. Please do some research before you post.
Post a Comment