News Is Exporting Banned DDT to Developing Countries Justifiable?

[Mattius_]

The U.S. banned DDT in the early 1970s and has since then exported DDT to a number of developing countries. Is this right?

 

[Shahil]

NO!

 

[Njorl]

In the US, the principle use of DDT was to make farm produce slightly more profitable. This was unacceptable considering the the effects on species with behavior that concentrated the toxin in their own bodies.

There are countries in the world in which malaria is a significant health risk. DDT is very effective at controlling mosquito population. This is an acceptable use even considering the side effects. If other effective measures can be taken to make DDT unnecessary, that would be wonderful. If they are effective enough, and available to the impovrished nations that need them most, then it would be unethical to supply DDT.

There are people who make a religion out of the environment. In that religion, DDT is a demon. It is always evil. Anyone who speaks about rational use of DDT is a heretic. Listening to heretics endangers the soul.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Yeah...the risk of DDT is not as great as the risk of malaria. You have to weigh the risks.

 

[member 5645]

Perfectly okay to me. There's a risk vs. gain here.

http://new.hst.org.za/news/index.php/20020625/

In South Africa, strictly controlled DDT spraying has now been resumed in malarial areas to tackle the malaria mosquitoes.
"



But our neighbours Mozambique, who have a worse malaria problem than we do, do not use any DDT because the American providers of donor funding won't
allow it, for fear of upsetting Green political opinions back home. "So Mozambicans die to keep US politics stable at home. "So much for the Green mantra of: 'Think globally, act locally'".



In December 2000 delegates from over 110 countries attending the UN Environmental Programme's conference on Persistent Organic Pollutants near
Johannesburg agreed that DDT could be used to save lives. The sting in the tail was that the extreme anti-DDT lobby did not want DDT exported or
imported by countries.



"Thus, virtually all African, South American and other countries in the world must set up manufacturing facilities for DDT. This is nuts."

Now, if controlled DDT spraying saves more lives than malaria takes, then it's a trade off that is to be decided by individual countries.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah...the risk of DDT is not as great as the risk of malaria. You have to weigh the risks.

stop agreeing with me! You are sounding like a heartless conservative! :p

 

[Njorl]

There is an intersection of some conservative and liberal views among rationalists. There's probably more common ground there than between the "Earth mother" and "jealous and angry God" crowds.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
stop agreeing with me! You are sounding like a heartless conservative! :p

No, if I were a heartless conservative I would want to sell DDT on credit to African nations at 20% interest, compounded hourly.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
No, if I were a heartless conservative I would want to sell DDT on credit to African nations at 20% interest, compounded hourly.

Excellent idea!

 

[motai]

Originally posted by Zero
No, if I were a heartless conservative I would want to sell DDT on credit to African nations at 20% interest, compounded hourly.

A purely profit-driven heartless conservative would sell DDT on credit to African nations at a staggering price (at least 3x its original price) with >50% interest, continuously compounded. To save money, he would then make DDT by using cheap non-human-grade chemicals to produce the "DDT" that is now a shadow (and dangerous mixture) of its former self.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by motai
A purely profit-driven heartless conservative would sell DDT on credit to African nations at a staggering price (at least 3x its original price) with >50% interest, continuously compounded. To save money, he would then make DDT by using cheap non-human-grade chemicals to produce the "DDT" that is now a shadow (and dangerous mixture) of its former self.

Absolute Bull!
Increasing the price by 3 times would only work if it still kept competive with the rest of the world, which it would not.
Again, 50% interest would also rule us out as a supplier.

Non-human grade? ITS A PESTICIDE MEANT TO KILL! It has been proven to cause defects, hence the controversy!


From an actual conservative, I would work it this way:

Offer Africans the AIDs treatment, computers, or better yet, military assistance (we can offer more and better than anyone else in the market) at the going rate. Hell, we couple in several of these and the DDT in a "Africa Loan Package" as assistance to the tormented continent. Follow this with a high interest on the tangibles, while overshadowing that with a "seemingly" low interest on payment for the services. This will keep the end price a good deal, and where we lose on the low interest, we gain with geopolitical power of military bases setup in the region. As time goes on, we use the military presence and the African's debt to us, to take a strong hold over the diamond and oil markets for repayment(while killing all endangered species, since that's what we conservatives get our rocks off on ).
We'll isolate the godforsaken wasteland and use it as a modern day
Australia for all of the world's prisoners

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
No, if I were a heartless conservative I would want to sell DDT on credit to African nations at 20% interest, compounded hourly.

Credit? Not a chance unless they can give us those diamonds of theirs as collateral...

 

[Zero]

See what I mean?!?

 

[Peter Pan]

The only reason that DDT should be sold to other counties is if we have extra. We SHOULD NOT, and i repeat, SHOULD NOT create more. We have found a better chemical and we should only sell that

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Peter Pan
The only reason that DDT should be sold to other counties is if we have extra. We SHOULD NOT, and i repeat, SHOULD NOT create more. We have found a better chemical and we should only sell that

Good point...why DON'T we sell cheaper, or give the old DDT away if we still have some?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Peter Pan
The only reason that DDT should be sold to other counties is if we have extra. We SHOULD NOT, and i repeat, SHOULD NOT create more. We have found a better chemical and we should only sell that

What is this better chemical? Is it cheaper?

Why should we not create more of a product that has a viable positive use?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Good point...why DON'T we sell cheaper, or give the old DDT away if we still have some?

What is the going rate for DDT? How low can it go??

Again, why not create a product that has viable uses? Simpy it is overkill for OUR uses (we don't have malaria problems).

We don't give it away because we aren't the world's charity. Why don't you give away more of your income? Why don't you do without MORE?