After beating Ebola, destroy Malaria … with DDT

Fortunately, efforts are taking place in Africa to stem the tide of Ebola outbreaks. The pandemics are the result mainly of an African custom of washing dead bodies prior to burial. Despite President Obama’s commitment of American resources to fight the virus, there is one more virus that he and some of his predecessors have neglected. Being that he is a father, if the President truly cares about African children, he would support the usage of DDT. Malaria is a bigger problem on the continent despite a drop in cases.

To environmentalists this idea of sparing a great many African youngsters’ lives at the reasonable expense of a few mosquitos along with scavangers and spineless creatures draws instant condemnations if not outright vitriol. Be that as it may, successful insect poisons, for example, DDT is the thing that attempted to dispense with the scourge of Malaria in America, and African children nothing less. In the event that you disagree, you should consider the alternative. Presently this open argument has boiled over for quite a long time and it has been, typically, rather hot-tempered.

It has been evaluated that banning DDT has slaughtered in the range of 20 million youngsters as of now and it extremely well could be millions of people more before this Ebola emergency is over. None the less, a 2013 Sydney Morning Herald article reveals that death rates in South Africa resulting from Malaria were slashed due to the pesticide’s use.

Opponents like to point out there are alternatives to DDT but what they fail to mention is that alternate pesticides can cost anywhere from two to twenty times more in which some are even dangerous to handle. Also, when South Africa stopped using DDT it’s malaria cases increased 6-fold. The person most responsible for the demonization of DDT is Rachel Carson who in her book Silent Spring in which not only have the points brought up in her book been proven wrong but her opposition to chlorinated hydrocarbons (which is what DDT is) explains Greenpeace’s opposition to chlorine.