Do environmentalists refuse to use DDT to control malaria because they can't admit that they were wrong?

Question

oikos the link to bald eagles has been de-bunked. That was just another urban legend made up by the radical environmentalists.

They see chemicals as "artificial" thus evil, and it's not enough for them to eschew using them - they want to force us to not use them.

It's no different from the radical Christian right - it's not enough for them to eschew homosexuality, they want it banned.

Answer 1

DDT is not a solution to the malaria problem, it only works as long as it is being applied.  Regularly dumping a long-lasting poison into our waterways is not a good idea.  DDT is only attractive because it is cheap compared to real solutions.

Anti-malaria drugs, bed nets, and fungal based insecticides are a much better option.  Of course, all of these things are more expensive than DDT.

Answer 2

Are you serious? DDT accumulates as it goes up the food chain. That was the reason that bald eagles were imperilled; eggs kept cracking. When DDT was banned in the U.S., the eagles started hatching chicks in reasonable quantities. Another problem is that human milk was containing DDT in quantities too high to be considered safely potable. That wasn't what you were raised on, was it? That would explain sooooo much.

Answer 3

Actually I think the real reason  is two fold.  If they don't kill the mosquito's then that helps 'thin' the population in poorer nations, which in turn, help reduce the need for things like food, energy etc.  that leaves more room for trees to grow.  See?

Answer 4

I believe that this is a politically motivated thing... ddt being banned and all.  All you have to do is look at the increase of malaria cases in countries that complied with the US and EU regulations....   I don't condone crop dusting with copious amounts of the stuff, but residential use to control mosquito entrance doesn't have the questionable negative effects that the above poster is referring to.  The effects on birds, eggs, etc.  are completely unfounded... the true information can be found here although the page is quite long, but very interesting.  

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

what i find so frustrating is that the "ban" was passed when the person in charge of it didn't attend the hearings where it was determined that DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man, nor did he read the transcript, yet still banned it...

politically motivated?  I think so, perhaps lobbying on the part of chemical manufacturers that make something similar to DDT but costs a LOT more.  

Don't worry, people in the world who believe the "blanket" ban on DDT is a farce, as soon as bedbugs get more and more out of control in the US an EU, the ban will be lifted because nothing else works.  

Look at the link, then flame me... i would love to hear information refuting the extensively researched information on that site above.