| Return to main page
formidable weapon against errors of any kind is reason"
By Peter and Helen
Even if you haven't got the faintest idea what the initials
"DDT" stand for, you probably 'know' that it is one of the most deadly
inventions of mankind. Yes, the environmentalists' spin has taken hold
and, in the conventional wisdom, DDT is associated with the death of Nature, if
not the end of the world. It's use has been banned in North America and
Europe. However, if this stuff was so bad and we basically dumped tons of
it on our farms up until the 1970's, then why haven't we all dropped dead in the
streets? Why isn't Spring actually Silent, as Rachel Carson's 1952 best
selling book threatened?
So what's the big deal about DDT all of a
sudden? We recently attended two lectures hosted by Roger Bate. He's been
campaigning in his fashion to stop about 300 million annual cases of a
debilitating disease. No, we're not talking about AIDS; we're talking
about malaria. Most of us in the wealthy, industrialized nations don't
think of it much anymore. That's because we used DDT to rid ourselves of
this disease. Nowadays, when people speak of Washington, DC as the "fever
swamp" it's a jocular reference to over-heated political rhetoric, but that
nickname first arose when mosquito-borne malaria was a very real threat to much
of this country.
In Africa, it's definitely no joke. Malaria
doesn't just kill about a million victims (mostly children) every year, it
debilitates enough of the population so that they can't work or care for
themselves or their families. Result: impoverished nations dependant
on... guess who? Yes, the UN organization composed of WHO (World Health
Organization), UNICEF and USAID. You'll notice the last agency (which
provides most of the funding) comes from the United States and this particular
agency is heavily lobbied and influenced by environmentalists who would prefer
to invoke the precautionary principle and ban DDT world-wide. The implication is
that they would let people die or remain dependent on them, rather than let them
use the small amounts of DDT that would effectively rid them of malaria and
allow them to live healthy, productive lives.
Let's consider the example
of Sri Lanka. Before DDT use began in the 1950's, there were 2.8 million
malarial infections and 7,300 deaths annually. After two decades of
spraying houses with minuscule amounts of DDT (grams, rather than the tonnes
formerly used in agriculture), there were only 17 infections and 0
deaths. By any standard, these are impressive figures. Yet DDT had,
by this time, fallen out of favor in the developed nations who had funded the
house-spray programs. The money stopped and, by the end of the 1960's, malaria
cases were up to half a million annually.
Yet, instead of allowing
or even recommending that impoverished countries use the small amounts of DDT
that could save millions of lives, the UN has come up with extremely expensive
and impressively inefficient methods to deal with the problem. What's
their solution? Insecticide-treated bed nets which cover less than 10% of the
target population and anti-malaria medication to be taken after the disease
strikes. Another feature of this process is that the UN has proclaimed
that anti-malarial medication cannot be patented. Thus, drug companies have no
incentive to pursue a "cure" and the disease develops a resistance to the
existing drugs. In some cases the medication has become ineffective to the
infected population by the time it finally reaches them.
another example of international busy-bodies who want to "change the world for
the better" but don't care about the human lives sacrificed in the pursuit of
their altruistic purpose. Even the UN estimates that it might take 40
years to "hand out" all the bed-nets necessary to effectively combat this
disease by their methods.
What's the alternative? Allow, nay,
encourage, malarial countries to use the minuscule amounts of DDT necessary to
combat malaria. As the populations are relieved of the terrible burden
imposed by this disease, their economies will improve and they can begin to take
care of themselves. They might even become so self-sufficient that the
do-gooders will be out of a job.
Peter and Helen Evans, http://peterandhelenevans.com This
husband and wife team - international teachers, freelance writers and speakers -
teach a philosophical approach to conservatism. They are also real
estate agents in the Washington, DC area.
back to top
return to index page
to book shelf to music shelf
Send your comments to email@example.com