Anyone remember that Winds post re: "The Toyota Taliban"? Not to mention "Apocalypso" about Haiti's situation and the difference between work that made a difference and activity to suck up foreign money? Well, here's Sen. Sam Brownback [R-KS], on the Toyota Taliban at work:
"Many have stated to me, and they know it in this country, we have given millions, if not billions, for years in aid to Africa and people are worse off today than they were when we started. What went wrong? Certainly some of the money went into dictators' pockets, but also much of it was wasted on conferences and consultants, telling people what to do, rather than giving them the tools to do it with.
Let me give you an example, malaria. We spent over 90% of our money budgeted for malaria on consultants. Now, the African leaders I talked to tell me that they know what to do about malaria, they don't have the money to do it. Indeed, it's the old adage, you can teach a man to fish, but if he has no fishing pole he isn't going to catch many. We must change this by getting medicines and food and water-drilling equipment, and African trained doctors and teachers to Africa, not one more conference at a nice hotel. Also, you need to go to Africa, people-to-people style, you need to do a work study-abroad in Africa, in Rwanda, in a country there, or take a spring break trip. Instead of going south, go really south. Go and visit. Go with a group that drills water wells. Go with a group that goes and helps distribute malaria medicines. You will be changed forever. You need to do it."
I'm as much in favor of combating malaria as the next one-time Africa resident, but what's all this juxtaposition of malaria and well-drilling? It's almost as if the author doesn't know the mosquito is the vector...
Don't you help keep people away from open water (malaria) like streams/ponds/lakes by drilling wells?
Don't you help provide safer water and better general health by drilling wells?
Round up the world's top "environmental activists", ship them to Gambia for a few months, and let them live with the consequences of bans on insecticides and chlorine.
As to malaria, there's already a tried and true (and relatively inexpensive) method to eliminate the disease, the use of DDT sprayed on indoor walls & ceilings. This eliminates the vast majority of malarial cases (somewhere around 85-95%), the remaining cases can be treated with modern anti-malarial drugs. But the developed world will not let developing countries use DDT because of environmental concerns. As if a bird's life is more important than a human being.
DDT works well?
Scientific American doesn't think so
Here are some other comments about DDT and bedbugs
Or the failings of DDT
Its not just birds, but possibly babies that can have
DDT issues
Joe, one minor correction to your original post:
Senator Sam Brownback is a Republican Senator from Kansas, not Missouri.
The two US Senators from Missouri are Christopher "Kit" Bond and Jim Talent.
There are (if I recall) two usual sources for usable water. Surface and ground. Usage of surface water would involve a certain amount of exposure to mosquitos, as still surface water is a breeding ground for mosquitoes. Drilling wells would combat this, and likely improve the quality of drinking and other kinds of water overall.
As for DDT, Scientific American doesn't like it, but it has been cited many times as being effective at combatting malaria. So who is telling the truth, or is there some 'nuance' involved?
I got this far in the SciAm article, and then declined reading the rest. It is interesting that India managed to effectively control malaria with DDT, though.
If you believe this sciam writer, then you probably believe Carson's claims about DDT. They are somewhat debunked In This Reason Article.
So, take it or leave it, DDT is still our best hope.
The biggest argument against DDT is that massive spraying like the old days (which no-one is suggesting btw, simply spraying indoor surfaces is incredibly effective) would likely generate DDT resistant mosquitos. WHY DOES THAT MATTER IF WE INTEND TO NEVER USE DDT AGAIN? The argument is either lunatic on its face, or it holds a very interesting if hidden nugget of truth... that being we may need to use DDT again- but only if malaria threatens US or European populations in a meaningful way again. In other words, its ok for the 2nd and 3rd world to drop dead in the name of Greenness, but someday it might actually inconvenience (much less threaten) vacationers on South Beach or Palm Springs or Breckinridge, in which case we will see how fast the ecolovers go running for DDT.
I can agree with most of the commenters here supporting DDT. However, it seems to me that the focus of the post was to point out that we have wasted our money on conferences and feel good meetings. I wholeheartedly agree with this, even more than the use of DDT.
The question is, how do we get rid of this middleman syndrome where we waste what could be life changing experiences for millions to nothing more than status quo, making some dictators and consultants richer and poor people poorer? It was certainly a good idea to start with.
I might add that I have done nothing to change this issue. Except give money. But it also seems to me that some of the religious groups (also not something I do) have done much more than any government program at relieving some of this problem.
The secondary focus of pretty much all Missionary work is building up societies through work like this. Digging wells, building homes, etc. We've been led into this kind of work because we found that you could not witness to someone you did not have a relationship with. Thus... getting in there and doing the nitty gritty.
RiverCocytus, try reading it again and you'll see that the oped piece advocates use of DDT in malaria eradication. The caveats are that overuse and or simply use over several years can render DDT ineffective and then you're back at square one...the regular 3rd world conumdrum.
Time for my DDT speech. I have spent a great amount of time trying to control insects. When I first read about people wanting to use DDTI wondered why?
Then in doing some internet surfing I came upon an article about an experiment in Belize. Two houses were sprayed. One was sprayed with DDT according to WHO standards, the other with deltamethrin according to WHO standards. Then yhe researchers sat in the unscreened houses and recorded Anopheles bites. The mossies entering the Deltamethrin hut promptly bit the researchers. The mossies entering the DDT treated hut flew in and then exited without biting.Sort of an Ah HA! moment resistance wasn't a problem because the mossie weren't coming in contact with the insecticide but were being repelled. It is this repellent property that makes DDT a valuable tool in malaria control.
Now malaria control is complex and DDT might not be a panacea, but there is evidence that it is a valuable tool. I say the ultimate defense of prudent use of DDT is that Kelthane (Dicofol) is still used on food crops in this country. Kelthane is "made" from DDT. Its breakdown components are the same as DDT and it causes some of the same enviromental effects (eg. eggshell thinning in mallard ducks in a feeding study) but it is one of few chemicals cleared for use agaisnt spider mites on food crops.Enough of this for now.
Exporter of used cars buses and trucks from Japan. Website contains stock list, photos of many types of vehicles including: Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, ...
http://www.japanbestcars.com