Discussion in 'Asia' started by NATO AIR, Jan 8, 2005.
something great Pres. Bush could do to save lives, at little cost to the US.
double edged sword....advocate DDT to wipe out malaria and save lives but kill wildlife ....or oppose the use of DDT lose lives and save wildlife
let them fix their own problem
i vote we rebuild florida first
this would be little cost to us, save millions of lives and help foster further goodwill for the US in the world... at the cost of some dead wildlife, i'm sorry but we should let them spray DDT. its wrong to let the environmentalists control our foreign policy in such a way. there are issues far more important to the environment and to the safety of the world that they should focus on, not preventing DDT from being sprayed.
on one of the news shows the other night, a doctor was on and talking about how if Malaria gets out of control over there, it is only a matter of time before somebody gets on a plane with it, brings it here, gets bitten by a mosquito and it spreads here.....
Let's put this puppy in perspective, shall we?
What animal kills more people than any other? The answer... the mosquito!
Malaria kills 2 MILLION people a year. That is almost 16 times the number of people that have been killed by the tsunami in Southeast Asia thus far, and over 20 times the number of AIDS cases that have been reported in the United States since 1981. And that is happening each and every year. But, this problem doesn't affect gays and may be solved using DDT, which is against the environmentalist agenda. Therefore, this problem has been the victim of politics and left wing ideology and swept under the rug.
Malaria kills people in underdeveloped countries rather than here because we took care of the problem before DDT was banned. DDT is one of the few insecticides that effectively kills malaria carrying mosquitoes.
Whether DDT actually kills off wildlife and so on is a matter of debate. I've read that amount of DDT needed to address the problem of malaria carrying mosquitos is a lot less than what was used in the past. This may just be a case of "environmental whackos" bending science to fit their political ideology.
P.S. On a somewhat tangential issue, I once read that the Ethiopian famines of the 1980s were partially the result of environmentalists opposing the research and development of "supergrains" which could be grown in the arid climate of the Sahara and sub-Saharan Africa. I'm not sure how much validity there is to that charge, but it wouldn't surpirse me if it turned out to be true.
It's their part of the world to do with as they please--if they want DDT by all means let em use it and not let em die because a few animals may die.
Separate names with a comma.