World Health Organization Claims No Health Risk for DDT

[...] Responding to WHO calls for wider use of DDT in malaria control, Jessie Stone — founder and director of Soft Power Health, a nonprofit organization in Uganda — says bed nets are a safer, cheaper and more effective option. The environmental risks of widespread DDT use are too great to implement a widespread spraying program in many parts of Africa, and the benefits are too small, says Stone. For example, she says an effective DDT spraying campaign in wet, rainy Uganda would cost tens of millions of dollars more than the successful mosquito eradication efforts in dry South Africa that were cited by the WHO. Meanwhile, widespread use of insecticide-impregnated bed nets can reduce malaria incidence by 50-90%, at a fraction of the cost of DDT and without the undesirable effects on the environment. [...]

Isn't that just the way it goes. Instead of using the cheaper and safer method of nets the go towards spraying a chemical that may be harmful. I don't get it.

DDT is actually very efficient in wiping out pests like mosquitoes. The problem we had here in the US is that farmers just kept blasting tons of the stuff on their crops. They way over used it and then it became an environmental problem. We were able to eliminate Malaria from our country and other industrialized nations then banned the use of it before third world countries could eliminate malaria as well. Bed nets will help prevent malaria incidences but won't eliminate the problem. I don't like pesticides or chemicals more than anyone else but if it can be used effectively to wipe out a disease that kills millions yearly, then it has my support. Interesting history on Malaria provided by the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/history/index.htm