peace
May 2007 
Ralph Nader's Support of DDT spraying
Posted on Dec 18th, 2006
by 
Michael
Michael
From a 2004 article, when DDT was about to be phased out globally; this fall, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially approved DDT for anti-malarial mosquito spraying:
". . . there is no mention on Nader's various sites of the one project he should be most proud of: the funding of the Malaria Project from his Center for the Study of Responsive Law in Washington, D.C.
The Malaria Project fought, in the face of massive environmental opposition, for the continued use of DDT for mosquito control in poor countries. Since DDT is such a totemic baddie for the Greens, it is probably politically unwise for Nader to support (even tacitly) its use. And this probably explains why the Malaria Project site at CSRL doesn't mention DDT at all. . . .
Courage in politicians is rare. . . .
The fact that Nader could put humanitarian concerns above his well-known dislike for DDT is commendable and strategically sensible. He could foresee, where no one else could, the harm to the environmental movement of being saddled with the blame for millions of dead children from malaria. It is likely that's how the history books would have written it had DDT been banned (and it still may be)."
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bate200406030904.asp
". . . there is no mention on Nader's various sites of the one project he should be most proud of: the funding of the Malaria Project from his Center for the Study of Responsive Law in Washington, D.C.
The Malaria Project fought, in the face of massive environmental opposition, for the continued use of DDT for mosquito control in poor countries. Since DDT is such a totemic baddie for the Greens, it is probably politically unwise for Nader to support (even tacitly) its use. And this probably explains why the Malaria Project site at CSRL doesn't mention DDT at all. . . .
Courage in politicians is rare. . . .
The fact that Nader could put humanitarian concerns above his well-known dislike for DDT is commendable and strategically sensible. He could foresee, where no one else could, the harm to the environmental movement of being saddled with the blame for millions of dead children from malaria. It is likely that's how the history books would have written it had DDT been banned (and it still may be)."
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bate200406030904.asp
Access: Public
