3 ms·

No, congratulating your grandparents for fogging their streets with pesticide and destroying wetlands has nothing to do with the struggle against malaria in the

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?

jcampbell1 15y ago
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.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  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.

jcampbell1 15y ago

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.

nate_meurer 15y ago
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.