Actor Forest Whitaker Comes to White House to Talk Malaria

“Wow, he actually lives here? I thought they just flew him in for games!”
ROFLMAO!

“Instead millions upon millions of poor people have died needlessly since the early 70′s, because we eliminated such an effective weapon against the greatest killer in all of human history.”
How did a ban on use and mfr of DDT in the US effect 3rd world countries?
You do know we almost killed off the Bald Eagle and hundreds other bird species right?

Note to self: Add:
Ending Malaria..
To the never ending W.H. ToDo List.

Way to go, Mr. Whitaker. I am pleased to see President Obama pledge to continue the effort of President Bush to eradicate malaria. Pesticides, used properly, are an important part of the solution, as are nets. And I just read a fascinating article on the development of ProVector, a colorful device that lures in mosquitoes so they are exposed to a biopesticide.
And Ryan, you do know that it is misuse of DDT that caused the environmental damage, and that there is a great deal of controversy over the banning of DDT. It is not, as you imply, a simple matter of “DDT bad, kills birds.” I’m far from an expert on such chemicals, and suspect you are not an expert either, but I have family members who are scientists who tell me that the science behind the hysteria about DDT is junk science. And I believe these experts more than I believe you– nothing personal. *G*

HA!

I think we’ve seen this “movie actors as experts” thing before and it causes me to wonder if we shouldn’t be giving our reps in Congress some sort of intelligence test before they’re seated. Maybe we could have them listen to Sean Penn and then explain to the rest of us just what the hell he’s saying.

DDT was banned for political reasons, as the 1972 EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus later admitted.
Its use during and after World War II proved that it allowed populations to grow, something the Malthusians did not want to happen, especially if those people were brown and black populations.
The World Health Organization reversed its ban on DDT in 2006, because DDT sprayed on the inside walls of houses is the most effective way to stop the spread of malaria. Malaria kills one child every 30 seconds in Africa; between one and two million people die of malaria per year, and hundreds of thousands are disabled by malaria every year.
DDT is so effective because unlike other pesticides, it not only kills mosquitoes, but repels them; it repels even resistant mosquitoes.
After the U.S. banned DDT, the State Department, NGOs, and many donor countries prohibited any aid going to a project that used DDT, so that DDT use was virtually banned from most developing nations, which could not afford to give up foreign aid.
You can read several articles about DDT on the website of 21st Century Science & Technology:
You can also find here the summary statement from the EPA’s scientific hearings on DDT in 1972, which
ruled that DDT should NOT be banned.

In the decades that followed the 1972 U. S. ban of DDT, malaria has grown worse in spite of the fact that DDT was not banned for public health use in most areas of the world where the disease is endemic.
The problem is much more complex than “overzealousness of environmentalists”. Even when DDT was made available with program funding, the local people resisted using this pesticide.
At first villagers were told DDT sprayings would kill all the mosquitoes and eliminate the disease — which didn’t happen. Then people heard stories of DDT misuse – for example, how over-spraying in Borneo killed not only mosquitoes, but also the wasps that preyed on the caterpillars that eat the thatch on the roofs of the houses, and how the huts across the sprayed area suddenly were roofless; how the geckoes that ate DDT contaminated cockroaches died; and how the cats of the islanders, who ate cockroaches and geckoes, also died. (The World Health Organization actually arranged for an airlift of cats to Borneo to prevent outbreaks of rodent-borne diseases like typhus.)

In 2006 U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) reversed 30 years of policy and reauthorized DDT to help combat malaria in Africa. WHO also came out in support of DDT to control Malaria.
What is now recommended now is spraying tiny amounts of DDT on huts – as part of other strategies such as better sanitation to control mosquito populations, drugs, bed nets, education, and better hospitals. Some believe no other chemical, at any price, currently does what DDT does. They say it keeps mosquitoes from entering huts, kills those that land, and reduces malaria rates – all with a single inexpensive spraying once or twice a year.
DDT is classified as “moderately toxic” by the US National Toxicological Program and “moderately hazardous” by the WHO. Some experts report there are no peer-reviewed studies showing a threat to human beings, and there is no evidence that wildlife would be endangered by indoor DDT spraying.

We do however have peer reviewed studies showing DDT does in fact kill animals. DDT thins eggshells of all birds, including songbirds, many of which have declined 90% in the past 30 years. DDT concentrates in living things quickly, and it multiplies up to 10 million times up the food chain. DDT concentrates in fatty tissues, where it is relatively benign, but when those fats are used, the DDT can prove toxic.
Consequently, migratory birds — such as raptors and mosquito eating birds — are put at highest risk of DDT poisoning when they migrate and burn the fats with the stored DDT. And, where eagles, falcons and other raptors are eliminated, disease-carrying rodent populations grow.
DDT spraying in the 60s also killed bats, which helped control mosquitoes. Bats were discovered to get significant doses of DDT from eating so many insects (up to their body weight in mosquitoes, nightly). When the bats migrate, they burn their DDT-laced body fats, and die of acute DDT poisoning.
And while DDT is classified as “moderately toxic” by the US National Toxicological Program and “moderately hazardous” by WHO, there are also other studies linking DDT with human malignancies, low infant birth weight, neuropsychological symptoms, adverse liver effects, asthma, diabetes, and a fivefold increase in breast cancer incidence.
In my view DDT is not a magic bullet and malaria is still a tough disease requiring better ammunition and many points of attack with less environmental impact.

Marjorie: So your Lyndon LaRouche site should be accepted because the name is “21st Century Science”? Talk about anecdotal “factoids.”
In the decades that followed the 1972 U. S. ban of DDT, malaria has grown worse in spite of the fact that DDT was not banned for public health use in most areas of the world where the disease is endemic. If you read my earlier posts, I do not promote a “ban” on DDT.
As you say, DDT alone is not a magic bullet. Many malaria parasites developed resistance to the drugs used to treat victims. Deforestation in places like Kenya, coupled with population concentrations in cities, helped malaria to spread to humans. Poverty prevented villagers from buying basic ways to fight malaria and mosquitoes — cheap malaria drugs, screens on windows, and bed nets. Decades of unstable African governments, wars, and weak healthcare systems contributed to the problem.
IMO, Malaria is a tough disease requiring better ammunition and many points of attack with less environmental impact.

Ms. Hecht, I find you posts patronizing . Where did you “read” that banning DDT was simply a “Malthusian” plot?
Brenda Eskenazi, UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and maternal and child health at the School of Public Health, says DDT does have human health impacts. You can find her recent work in Environmental Health Perspectives, a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news on the impact of the environment on human health. This scientist whose work is devoted to healthier mothers and babies has no “Malthusian” hidden agenda.
On the other hand, LaRouche has a long history of recklessly charging political figures with conspiracy, evil dealings, and paranoid plots. (For example, LaRouche’s speech, “Our Fight for the Christian-Platonic Method in Science,” in The New Federalist, September 16, 1991.)
Sorry Ms. Hecht, but I’d rather see policies guided by peer reviewed science over conspiracy theories.