Sam Zaramba, in a subscription-only op-ed column in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, gives the next Woodward or Bernstein a hot story to follow up on:
..... malaria ..... is the biggest killer of Ugandan and all African children. Yet it remains preventable and curable. Last week in Germany, G-8 leaders committed new resources to the fight against the mosquito-borne disease and promised to use every available tool.
Now they must honor this promise by supporting African independence in the realm of disease control. We must be able to use Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane -- DDT.
..... Today, every single Ugandan still remains at risk. Over 10 million Ugandans are infected each year, and up to 100,000 of our mothers and children die from the disease.
No one could possibly be conspiring to prevent the eradication of malaria, could they?
Well, yes they could. And they are, as Zaramba notes:
Although Uganda's National Environmental Management Authority has approved DDT for malaria control, Western environmentalists continue to undermine our efforts and discourage G-8 governments from supporting us. The EU has acknowledged our right to use DDT, but some consumer and agricultural groups repeat myths and lies about the chemical. They should instead help us use it strictly to control malaria.
Environmental leaders must join the 21st century ..... and balance the hypothetical risks of DDT with the real and devastating consequences of malaria. Uganda has demonstrated that, with the proper support, we can conduct model indoor spraying programs and ensure that money is spent wisely, chemicals are handled properly, our program responds promptly to changing conditions, and malaria is brought under control.
Who ARE these people who are allowing thousands to die? America's and the world's journalists should be devoting substantial resources to finding out who these people are, naming names, and exposing their treachery to the public. These enviro-religious zealots are stuck in the 1960s and 1970s. Lives are lost for every day they cause delay.
What else could possibly be more important than exposing these people?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well, the most radical envi
June 14, 2007 - 03:00 ET by motherbeltWell, the most radical environmentalists believe the "planet" would be better off without mankind anyway, so they're not really going to mind too much if people die. But one would think they would rather see people die in the developed countries, who are causing all the problems, rather than the poor in Africa, whose life practices don't contribute much to the destruction.
Disengenuous Liberals
June 14, 2007 - 03:45 ET by Cool ArrowIf Darwinism is the church of Liberalism, and it is, shouldn't we just sit back and watch a National Geographic special on survival of the fittest in Darfur?
Libs are so ready to watch Genocide TV when they pull the plug on Iraq, and for how many years did Bill Clinton ignore the Congo?
Journalists, if they start
June 14, 2007 - 04:23 ET by sarcasmoJournalists, if they start doing their jobs on this story, might also ask who the people that have been saying the ban on DDT kills for years are, since we also exist, just like our holier-than-thou but suddenly-secretive opponents. I first read about it in (surprise!) tiny Reason magazine, which packed its usual oversized intellectual punch on the story. It's nice to see the rest of the media-world catching-up. Finally...
JMR
sarc You anti American coot
June 14, 2007 - 04:33 ET by Cool ArrowLTNS.
How can you advocate further endangerment of the bald eagle just to save a few million people? Remember, according to the Deteriorada, they have no right to be here.
I suspect the Africans migh
June 14, 2007 - 04:44 ET by sarcasmoI suspect the Africans might be wiser with their use of DDT than we Floridians were back when big government gave it away (a true factoid sarcasmo repeatedly-but-singlehandedly reports on NB -- you decide if any of the "real" news media have ever followed-up on my explosive DDT-socialism allegation!). Still, considering the rampancy of socialism's cancer on that continent, you're right. Trusting governments with a chemical as dangerous as DDT -- even to save lives -- is a risk.
JMR
What are the choices sarc
June 14, 2007 - 05:00 ET by Cool ArrowAdmittedly I know very little about the effects of DDT on ecosystems.
Can we kill off rainforest to separate people from the mosquitoes?
Can we safely use DDT?
I think so. I think the inc
June 14, 2007 - 05:09 ET by sarcasmoI think so. I think the incentives-structure under capitalism will work best to allocate DDT where it's needed. The thing is, you don't want 0 mosquitos to exist, because their larvae are a vital food for other critters people actually like. I worry that the only entity using the DDT in Africa is likely to be random African governments, which I trust far less than I trust random African individuals who've paid for it with their own money, but we've been bitching while they've been dying for so many decades that it's time to "do something." (Always dangerous words!) Hopefully our experience with overuse will lead the African governments the right way.
JMR
Good post--thanks for the ale
June 14, 2007 - 08:30 ET by Michael ChapmanGood post--thanks for the alert to the article. This insipid debate about DDT has been going on for years, and the science is on the side of those who want to stop disease and save lives. The consequence of liberal Westerners' objections to using DDT to fight malaria is that Africans die. It's that simple. Opposition to DDT to fight malaria means Africans die.
So would it be fair to say th
June 14, 2007 - 14:58 ET by dscottSo would it be fair to say that actions speak to intent? For environmental wackos to oppose DDT use to fight Malaria in Africa is covertly racist, isn't it? Or if not racist since it seems most people who die from malaria are also the uneducated poor, then it could be better characterized as "class warfare" as college educated vs illiterate or well-to-do vs. poor. How comfortable it must be for the ivory tower set to pontificate over DDT while the poor die in their mud huts.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius