> "If you could go back to the 1940's, and stop the DDT spraying to save the birds it killed, would you?"
This is a bit of a non-sequitur. The problem was that whole species of raptors were threatened by the widespread use of DDT. Yes it absolutely would have been wise to restrict DDT earlier than they did. Or maybe we Americans just enjoy the thrill of nearly exterminating a species of bird. The result is the same: DDT is now restricted in the U.S., and Americans cope with it just fine. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the struggles of people in tropical third-world countries, who can often do little better than try to save enough money to buy a mosquito net.
> "I am glad our grandparents generation poured oil on wetlands"
Right, because wetlands don't benefit humans in any way, do they?
The reason Americans are currently able to cope with a DDT ban is mostly because the ban only went into effect after malaria had been effectively eradicated.
Ban it a few decades earlier, and people would not be "coping", they'd be getting sick as hell.
You're using some pretty vague phrasing here. People still get "sick as hell" from West Nile, but I don't often hear that used as an excuse to start fogging the streets again.
DDT was only one part of the U.S.'s efforts against malaria, and it is the other mitigations that have provided lasting relief; notice that DDT has now been restricted in the U.S. for over forty years, and malaria continues to be a non-issue in this country.
The pyrethroids that we now use, which are both more effective as knock-down agents and less persistent in the the environment, were first developed in the 60s. If we had restricted DDT use in open air earlier, as we should have, smart money says that development of alternatives would have accelerated. The TVA would have continued with the main parts of the malaria program -- water management, urban planning, maybe even in-home spraying (which is where DDT is most effective anyway). The U.S would still be here, and you'd still not be getting sick as hell from malaria.
By today, 2011, it is likely that malaria would still be largely eradicated. But had DDT been prematurely banned there undoubtedly would have been an uptick in malaria outbreaks. I suggest you spend some time researching the extent of a roll DDT actually played.
All of this is silly anyway. Eagles have made a comeback, so who cares what happened in the past? Seems to me everything worked out pretty well.
It has everything to do with the third world. DDT is the cheapest and longest lasting insecticide. Was used to virtually eradicate malaria in China, and is effective in India where it is still used today.
What compound do you propose treating those mosquito nets with? I assume it is something more expensive and shorter lasting. Untreated mosquito nets don't work very well, and other chemical treatments only last 3 months, and cost 3x as much. DDT is cheap and lasts a year.
No, congratulating your grandparents for fogging their streets with pesticide and destroying wetlands has nothing to do with the struggle against malaria in the third world. Americans do NOT suffer the third world's pain of mosquito borne disease.
DDT has an important role in mosquito control in poor countries, and a lot of technical effort is being put into helping them to use DDT in a targeted, efficient manner, i.e. in manner different from that for which you congratulate our misinformed grandparents.
But perhaps you'd recommend that the third world destroy their wetlands as well (more than they already are). Care to defend that remark, or was that just a cheap drive-by?
I am fine with spraying oil on swamp land to eradicate mosquito born illnesses. I can't tell from your comment if you are aware that malaria used to be a problem in the US. It was, and our grandparent's generation solved it. That is what I am congratulating them for.
I have no problem with the third world using the same techniques to eradicate malaria that was used in the US to eradicate malaria.
Yes I can see that. But you don't seem to have thought this through very well.
If sprayed promiscuously as the Americans did, how much DDT would even the smallest third world tropical country need to make a dent in malaria rates? How much acreage would have to be oiled (and thus destroyed as a habitat) to do the same? Assuming they could afford it financially, how would they afford the ecological costs? Remember, many of these countries don't have industrialized agriculture to insulate them from damage to native habitats.
And forget oiling wetlands -- that's not how the Americans did it. Americans did most of the work by draining wetlands near populated areas. So tell me how that would work in a country like Nigeria? I'll give you a hint if you need one.
There are many intelligent ways to fight malaria. Exporting some clumsy, ham-fisted methods that Americans rejected forty years ago is not one of them.
This is a bit of a non-sequitur. The problem was that whole species of raptors were threatened by the widespread use of DDT. Yes it absolutely would have been wise to restrict DDT earlier than they did. Or maybe we Americans just enjoy the thrill of nearly exterminating a species of bird. The result is the same: DDT is now restricted in the U.S., and Americans cope with it just fine. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the struggles of people in tropical third-world countries, who can often do little better than try to save enough money to buy a mosquito net.
> "I am glad our grandparents generation poured oil on wetlands"
Right, because wetlands don't benefit humans in any way, do they?