Why are some people so upset with Obama's speech to the children?
Honestly, if Obama talks about the bolded part below, why would ANYONE have a problem with it? If he gets all political with the speech, does anyone think he won't get lambasted? Maybe I'm missing something here, but what is wrong with our president talking to our nations youth about working hard, and taking their education seriously?
There is plenty to criticize Obama over, but I'm not sure if this is one of those times. Criticize him afterward if he decides to talk about parts of his agenda to these children.
President Barack Obama's plans for a televised back-to-school address to students next week are drawing fire from some conservatives, who say he's just trying to indoctrinate them to his political beliefs.
In the Sept. 8 speech, Obama will challenge students to work hard, set goals for their education and take responsibility for their learning, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a letter to principals.
The Education Department is encouraging teachers to create lesson plans around the speech, using materials provided on the department website, that urge students to learn about Obama and other presidents.
"He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens," Duncan said in a press release.
But already, some conservatives are crying foul. The chairman of the Florida Republican Party is condemning Obama's speech as an attempt to "indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda."
"The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power," Chairman Jim Greer said in a press release.
Added conservative talk show host Tammy Bruce, in a Twitter feed: "Make September 8 Parentally Approved Skip Day. You are your child's moral tutor, not that shady lawyer from Chicago." And conservative author Michelle Malkin said the lesson plans have a "heavy activist bent."
Texas school districts are discussing whether the president's speech will be shown — some districts are leaving it up to individual teachers with an opt out parents who don't want their children to view the speech, according to the Houston Chronicle.
In his letter to principals, Duncan said viewing of the speech is encouraged, not mandatory. It's the first time a president has ever given a speech addressed directly to students.
It's not a political speech. It's a speech about getting good grades and taking education seriously.
Some pepole just want to complain and cry about everything he does now. Namely Glenn Beck. I'm not so sure Glenn Beck could pass a GED test at this point. How the hell did he ever get a show?
Because with all of the other stuff he has pulled, he needs to take a break from the Hugo Chavez playbook.
Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."
Teachers are also given guidance to tell students to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama."
For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare by excerpting quotes from Obama's speeches on education for their students to contemplate -- and ask as questions such as "Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?"
Activities suggested for after the speech include asking students "what resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?"
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't like my taxes going to support building an Obama fan club. Why is this stuff all so Obama centric, rather then country? Let's say I don't want Obama setting goals for children to fight for healthcare and global warming promotion? What if a student doesn't like Obama and is forced to do this stuff?
If it was a message to work hard, stay in school and that sort of thing, it would be great, but it's all the extra political stuff that people are upset with.
Because with all of the other stuff he has pulled, he needs to take a break from the Hugo Chavez playbook.
Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."
Teachers are also given guidance to tell students to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama."
For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare by excerpting quotes from Obama's speeches on education for their students to contemplate -- and ask as questions such as "Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?"
Activities suggested for after the speech include asking students "what resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?"
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't like my taxes going to support building an Obama fan club. Why is this stuff all so Obama centric, rather then country? Let's say I don't want Obama setting goals for children to fight for healthcare and global warming promotion? What if a student doesn't like Obama and is forced to do this stuff?
If it was a message to work hard, stay in school and that sort of thing, it would be great, but it's all the extra political stuff that people are upset with.
If you have a link to all this nonsense, I'll believe you. Otherwise, have some kool-aid.
__________________
2010 AAT: Bad *** MoFo Willie Horton
peace through porn - mark the shark www.celticrockers.com
It's not a political speech. It's a speech about getting good grades and taking education seriously.
Some pepole just want to complain and cry about everything he does now. Namely Glenn Beck. I'm not so sure Glenn Beck could pass a GED test at this point. How the hell did he ever get a show?
Hrm, got to find this Beck guy, he must be exposing some real truths the way the leftists are attacking him. It's typical, the more correct a fellow is at exposing the agenda of the left, the more attacked personally they are, especially their intelligence.
Look, you don't have to call it nonsense if you aren't aware. State you hadn't heard about that, and do some investigation on your own before trying to call me out. Do you really think anybody would care if the president gave a Welcome back to school speech which he tells the students to work hard?
Glenn Beck? Seriously Dr. Who? This is a guy who just YESTERDAY advocated the return of DDT! He cited two horrifically outdated studies to back up his point that DDT was unfairly banned, in effect saying the Author of "Silent Spring" and Joni Mitchell are culpable in the deaths of millions of people due to Malaria and Typhus.
Forget, for just a minute, that DDT almost wiped out the Bald Eagle and other birds, because it damaged the reproductive systems in a number of avian species. Studies done since the mid '90s have show potential links between MILD exposure to DDT and damage to HUMAN reproduction, low birth weight, and impaired infant cognitive abilities.
Yet, since it proves a political point, Beck ignores the RECENT research, and says DDT is a victim of rabid leftists. Never does he mention that there are OTHER, EFFECTIVE ways of reducing malaria and typhus, and managing mosquito populations that DON'T potentially impact our ability to reproduce as a species.
This is just one instance of his tomfoolery. There are whole websites dedicated to debunking his LIES. He's a hack. Pure and simple.
It's not a political speech. It's a speech about getting good grades and taking education seriously.
Some pepole just want to complain and cry about everything he does now. Namely Glenn Beck. I'm not so sure Glenn Beck could pass a GED test at this point. How the hell did he ever get a show?
__________________
“Lord, we ain’t what we want to be; we ain’t what we ought to be; we ain’t what we gonna be, but, thank God, we ain’t what we was.” - MLK 1959
Glenn Beck? Seriously Dr. Who? This is a guy who just YESTERDAY advocated the return of DDT! He cited two horrifically outdated studies to back up his point that DDT was unfairly banned, in effect saying the Author of "Silent Spring" and Joni Mitchell are culpable in the deaths of millions of people due to Malaria and Typhus.
Forget, for just a minute, that DDT almost wiped out the Bald Eagle and other birds, because it damaged the reproductive systems in a number of avian species. Studies done since the mid '90s have show potential links between MILD exposure to DDT and damage to HUMAN reproduction, low birth weight, and impaired infant cognitive abilities.
Yet, since it proves a political point, Beck ignores the RECENT research, and says DDT is a victim of rabid leftists. Never does he mention that there are OTHER, EFFECTIVE ways of reducing malaria and typhus, and managing mosquito populations that DON'T potentially impact our ability to reproduce as a species.
This is just one instance of his tomfoolery. There are whole websites dedicated to debunking his LIES. He's a hack. Pure and simple.
Another big problem with DDT is that a lot of target organisms developed resistance (including mosquitoes) such that it wasn't effective. In some cases it wiped out the beneficial insects as well-Paul Debach once said that anytime he needed citrus scales for his research, all he had to do was spray his grove with DDT and he'd have tons of them.
As for Rachel Carson, she had a master's degree in biology (which wasn't as common as it is now), and years of experience writing about wildlife with the DWF. I preferred the tone of the book Pesticides and the Living Landscape to Silent Spring, but if she'd written it that way nobody would have read it (have you heard of Rudd's book)? It's sad, but true.
__________________
"Dripping water can even fill a pitcher, drop by drop; one who is wise is filled with good, even if one accumulates it little by little."
2010 AAT: Will Rhymes
I can't bring myself to watch or listen to Glen Beck anymore than I can listen to Rush Limbaugh. For the most part, I've stopped watching all these guys for the last 4-7 weeks or so. The only one I like even a little is Bill O - and I can only take him in small doses.
Hrm, got to find this Beck guy, he must be exposing some real truths the way the leftists are attacking him. It's typical, the more correct a fellow is at exposing the agenda of the left, the more attacked personally they are, especially their intelligence.
I'm afraid this statement is also said to be typical the more somebody from the right attacks somebody from the left.
Could it be that there are idiots on both parts of the political spectrum?
__________________
"Dripping water can even fill a pitcher, drop by drop; one who is wise is filled with good, even if one accumulates it little by little."
2010 AAT: Will Rhymes
White House Withdraws Call for Students to 'Help' Obama
The Obama administration is rethinking its course recommendations for students ahead of President Obama's address to the the nation's schoolchildren next week, rewriting its suggestions to teachers for student assignments on how to "help the president,"
The Washington Times reported Thursday that presidential aides acknowledged they helped the U.S. Education Department write the suggested assignments, which stirred criticism by many who say Obama is trying to indoctrinate the education system.
White House aides said the language was supposed to be a inspirational, pro-education message to America's youths, but its unintended consequences were evident.
Among the activities initially suggested for pre-K to 6th grade students was to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."
I was surprised that so many people were opposed to it without even hearing the speech.
really? That doesn't surprise me in the least.
__________________
“Lord, we ain’t what we want to be; we ain’t what we ought to be; we ain’t what we gonna be, but, thank God, we ain’t what we was.” - MLK 1959
In my area, most districts have chosen not to disrupt existing lesson plans but will make the speech available to teachers to use at another time either taped or on the www. Honestly, this type of thing IS more useful when the teacher who will be presenting the material has had the opportunity to see it beforehand and prepare for associated lessons.
The freaking out from the right is over the top. The suggested lesson plans were kind of lame, but very typical. And I don't think it's wrong for our children to be taught respect for OUR President, whether you voted for him and whether you agree with him politically or not. Certainly the left didn't set a very good example during Bush's administration, but that's no excuse.
Elections these days are won and lost on the independent moderates and let me tell you, both sides seem to be doing their best to alienate them.
In my area, most districts have chosen not to disrupt existing lesson plans but will make the speech available to teachers to use at another time either taped or on the www. Honestly, this type of thing IS more useful when the teacher who will be presenting the material has had the opportunity to see it beforehand and prepare for associated lessons.
The freaking out from the right is over the top. The suggested lesson plans were kind of lame, but very typical. And I don't think it's wrong for our children to be taught respect for OUR President, whether you voted for him and whether you agree with him politically or not. Certainly the left didn't set a very good example during Bush's administration, but that's no excuse.
Elections these days are won and lost on the independent moderates and let me tell you, both sides seem to be doing their best to alienate them.
Agreed.
Especially from a teacher's perspective, it would be nice to have the info ahead of time, so as to either present it as a separate lesson, or incorporate it into a unit of learning.
Truthfully, the incessant railing and gnashing of teeth on both sides is , in my opinion, doing serious harm to us as a nation.
(pre-emptive note: Yes, I am old) I swear to you, I don't ever recall the level of partisanship that's developed over the last decade or so. I absolutely (let's say 25 yrs ago) remember people (not just politicians) actually stopping and LISTENING to what an opponent had to say, and *gasp* considering the merits of the argument. I'm not talking "fringe" people.... they've always been there and unreasonable, but the vast majority of people recognized that fact, and did NOT embrace the radical factions of their particular beliefs.
What the hell happened?
People now seem to think that who ever yells the loudest, wins. It's the Jerry Springer mentality come home to roost at every level of our lives.
And it's wrong. And it's not now, nor has it ever been helpful.
__________________
"Clete Thomas always has a crazy look on his face. His eyes are just huge. He looks like at any minute he could snap and kill a guy..... or hit a baseball 422 feet" ...ScrubBeaterUpper
Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer today released the following statement condemning President Obama's use of taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda.
"As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.
This comment on an online newspaper article about the fuss really cracked me up this morning:
Quote:
"Kind of funny, really, if you really think about the effects of reverse psychology ...
Tell 'em it's required viewing as part of school curriculum ~ they'll be texting during the broadcast ...
'Shelter them for their own good' ~ they'll find it on YouTube & watch, just to see what all the fuss was about."
It's true!
ha!!
What an ingenious way to get kids to watch something ------ tell them they "shouldn't" !
Long live youtube.
Glenn Beck? Seriously Dr. Who? This is a guy who just YESTERDAY advocated the return of DDT! He cited two horrifically outdated studies to back up his point that DDT was unfairly banned, in effect saying the Author of "Silent Spring" and Joni Mitchell are culpable in the deaths of millions of people due to Malaria and Typhus.
Forget, for just a minute, that DDT almost wiped out the Bald Eagle and other birds, because it damaged the reproductive systems in a number of avian species. Studies done since the mid '90s have show potential links between MILD exposure to DDT and damage to HUMAN reproduction, low birth weight, and impaired infant cognitive abilities.
Yet, since it proves a political point, Beck ignores the RECENT research, and says DDT is a victim of rabid leftists. Never does he mention that there are OTHER, EFFECTIVE ways of reducing malaria and typhus, and managing mosquito populations that DON'T potentially impact our ability to reproduce as a species.
This is just one instance of his tomfoolery. There are whole websites dedicated to debunking his LIES. He's a hack. Pure and simple.
You're wrong. Beck is right on the DDT. Frankly, the MILLIONS of people who have died of malaria since the ban of DDT led to the resurgence of the mosquito are worth a hell of a lot more than a few bald eagles.
__________________
Did anyone else see the interview where they asked him about the chances he would come back to the Twins? He said "for real? VERY slim." He held his fingers together to show the chances. Then when asked what it would take to keep him he said "PAY ME!" -- Brian "estrepe1" Bluhm on Torii Hunter, April 16, 2007, 3:10 a.m.
Honestly, if Obama talks about the bolded part below, why would ANYONE have a problem with it? If he gets all political with the speech, does anyone think he won't get lambasted? Maybe I'm missing something here, but what is wrong with our president talking to our nations youth about working hard, and taking their education seriously?
There is plenty to criticize Obama over, but I'm not sure if this is one of those times. Criticize him afterward if he decides to talk about parts of his agenda to these children.
Why is he addressing minors directly? He can address me, and I, the parent, will decide whether he has said anything my children need to hear. It's classic indoctrination. He's not going to change my mind, so he goes after the children. It's inappropriate. It's wrong.
Frankly, I would hope my children would write that they would help Obama find his way back to Chicago for trying to pull a stunt like this.
__________________
Did anyone else see the interview where they asked him about the chances he would come back to the Twins? He said "for real? VERY slim." He held his fingers together to show the chances. Then when asked what it would take to keep him he said "PAY ME!" -- Brian "estrepe1" Bluhm on Torii Hunter, April 16, 2007, 3:10 a.m.
You're wrong. Beck is right on the DDT. Frankly, the MILLIONS of people who have died of malaria since the ban of DDT led to the resurgence of the mosquito are worth a hell of a lot more than a few bald eagles.
What in the sam-hill does bald eagles have to do with malaria? Are they talking bald-eagles in Africa? Then I'd have a problem with it. DDT should be used sensibly where there's malaria, and that's not the United States, so I don't know what we have to do with DDT and dying children.
__________________
If I say something dumb, just assume I was being sarcastic.
What in the sam-hill does bald eagles have to do with malaria? Are they talking bald-eagles in Africa? Then I'd have a problem with it. DDT should be used sensibly where there's malaria, and that's not the United States, so I don't know what we have to do with DDT and dying children.
Are you asking me?
__________________
Did anyone else see the interview where they asked him about the chances he would come back to the Twins? He said "for real? VERY slim." He held his fingers together to show the chances. Then when asked what it would take to keep him he said "PAY ME!" -- Brian "estrepe1" Bluhm on Torii Hunter, April 16, 2007, 3:10 a.m.
You're wrong. Beck is right on the DDT. Frankly, the MILLIONS of people who have died of malaria since the ban of DDT led to the resurgence of the mosquito are worth a hell of a lot more than a few bald eagles.
DDT is universally allowed for vector control specifically to mitigate malaria.
What in the sam-hill does bald eagles have to do with malaria? Are they talking bald-eagles in Africa? Then I'd have a problem with it. DDT should be used sensibly where there's malaria, and that's not the United States, so I don't know what we have to do with DDT and dying children.
Your common sense response reflect the actual world - as opposed to the fantastic right wing world.
That banning DDT was wrong is an article of faith among the extreme right. It has nothing to do with reality, just a way to reinforce that environmentalism and liberalism are wrong always.
See also the recent attempts to say that FDR prolonged the depression. There's a conventional history (that the far-right calls 'liberal') and there is a far-right version.
That banning DDT was wrong is an article of faith among the extreme right. It has nothing to do with reality, just a way to reinforce that environmentalism and liberalism are wrong always.
See also the recent attempts to say that FDR prolonged the depression. There's a conventional history (that the far-right calls 'liberal') and there is a far-right version.
That banning DDT was right is an article of faith among the extreme left. It has nothing to do with reality, just a way to reinforce that extreme environmentalism and liberalism are right always. There is a conventional history (that the liberals call "far right") and there is a extreme liberal version.
See, anyone can make up this ********, not just liberals.
__________________
Did anyone else see the interview where they asked him about the chances he would come back to the Twins? He said "for real? VERY slim." He held his fingers together to show the chances. Then when asked what it would take to keep him he said "PAY ME!" -- Brian "estrepe1" Bluhm on Torii Hunter, April 16, 2007, 3:10 a.m.
See also the recent attempts to say that FDR prolonged the depression.
I learned that in High School in the 1980s. Don't know what you mean by recent, but since it's true, it's timing is irrelevant.
__________________
Did anyone else see the interview where they asked him about the chances he would come back to the Twins? He said "for real? VERY slim." He held his fingers together to show the chances. Then when asked what it would take to keep him he said "PAY ME!" -- Brian "estrepe1" Bluhm on Torii Hunter, April 16, 2007, 3:10 a.m.
That banning DDT was right is an article of faith among the extreme left. It has nothing to do with reality, just a way to reinforce that extreme environmentalism and liberalism are right always. There is a conventional history (that the liberals call "far right") and there is a extreme liberal version.
See, anyone can make up this ********, not just liberals.
Except what I label as conventional history actually is conventional history. And the far-right does call it a liberal history. In other words, what I wrote is actually true rather than a kneejerk ideological reaction to being called an ideologue.
Except what I label as conventional history actually is conventional history. And the far-right does call it a liberal history. In other words, what I wrote is actually true rather than a kneejerk ideological reaction to being called an ideologue.
Go on believing that if it makes you happy. Don't let facts get in your way.
__________________
Did anyone else see the interview where they asked him about the chances he would come back to the Twins? He said "for real? VERY slim." He held his fingers together to show the chances. Then when asked what it would take to keep him he said "PAY ME!" -- Brian "estrepe1" Bluhm on Torii Hunter, April 16, 2007, 3:10 a.m.
Shabba do you think its factual that FDR prolonged the Depression? This is a "fact" that I never learned when I learned about the depression, and it does seem, to me, like a "fact" that was devised just recently to argue against Keynesian government involvement. I had never even heard the argument until before the bailouts/stimulus started happening.
eta: nevermind, you answered it already.
__________________
“Lord, we ain’t what we want to be; we ain’t what we ought to be; we ain’t what we gonna be, but, thank God, we ain’t what we was.” - MLK 1959
The WHO's recommendation for limited use of DDT in 2006 was a reversal of a 30-year old policy against its use
Quote:
The World Health Organization reversed a 30-year-old policy yesterday and declared its support for indoor use of the pesticide DDT to control mosquitoes in regions where malaria is a major health problem.
The Geneva-based WHO, which provides advice to many developing countries, believes the benefits of the long-acting pesticide far outweigh any health or environmental risk it may pose.
"Indoor residual spraying with DDT and other insecticides will again play a major role in [WHO's] efforts to fight the disease." Arata Kochi, director of the organization's malaria department, said at a news conference in Washington. "WHO will use every possible and safe method to control malaria."
The endorsement is only for once- or twice-yearly spraying of the pesticide on the inside walls of dwellings, especially mud and thatched huts. Used that way, DDT functions as both an insect repellent and -- when a blood-engorged female mosquito lands on the wall to digest its meal -- an insecticide.
One application costs about $5. Most of that cost is labor, as it is sprayed on by professional applicators, and each packet of the pesticide must be strictly accounted for.
About 1 million people die each year of malaria, most of them African children under age 5.
WHO expects opposition to the policy change from some environmental groups. Kochi appealed directly to them in his announcement.
"I am here today to ask you, please help save African babies as you are helping to save the environment. African babies do not have a powerful movement . . . to champion their well-being," he said.
The most famous pesticide in the world, DDT has few if any adverse effects in human beings. Its chief hazard is that it persists in the environment for years. Widespread agricultural use of DDT in the 1950s and 1960s caused the thinning of bird eggshells and the steep decline in the population of some species.
Its utility in malaria control, however, is undisputed. DDT spraying helped eradicate or greatly reduce malaria in North America, southern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East in the decades after World War II. It continues to be used indoors in a few countries.
* * *
Numerous countries in southern Africa use DDT, but the compound is generally not used in central and west Africa, which have more intense malaria transmission, said Shiva Murugasampillay, a physician at WHO in Geneva.
DDT was the chief chemical villain of Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," whose publication in 1962 helped nurture the modern environmental movement. The chemical was banned in the United States in 1972, and its use worldwide fell steeply after that. It is no longer used in agriculture.
A study in Zambia in 2000 found that when all houses in a neighborhood were sprayed, malaria incidence fell 35 percent compared with years when none was sprayed.
Swaziland and Madagascar each had malaria epidemics after suspending DDT spraying, the latter's outbreak killing more than 100,000 people from 1986 to 1988. Both epidemics were stopped when DDT spraying resumed.
In other words, everything shabba said about DDT was right and its status as being essentially banned for 30 years helped cause a portion of 30 million African deaths.
This right-wing fact helpfully brought to you by extremist newspaper The Washington Post.
__________________
I hate Sydney Crosby
2010 Adopted Tiger -- DH (hopefully) Carlos Guillen
Previous adoptees: Gerald Laird (2009), Zach Miner (2008), Dusty Ryan (2007),
Last edited by Mark The Shark; 09-03-2009 at 10:51 AM.
DDT: a polluted debate in malaria control
The Lancet Volume 368, Issue 9553, 16 December 2006-22 December 2006, Pages 2111-2113
Quote:
A recent press statement from WHO about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and indoor residual spraying for malaria control1 caused a considerable stir, despite the fact that, in terms of policy, it merely re-iterated WHO's endorsement of DDT as a useful insecticide for malaria control, albeit in a highly promotional way. In this recurring debate, arguments for and against DDT, as before, have been heated and mainly based on considerations far removed from the realities of malaria control.
One group that criticised the WHO statement has inferred that my resignation from WHO's Global Malaria Programme in September, 2006, was related to my opposition to its promotion of DDT.2 This assumption is erroneous. For many years, WHO's malaria-control professionals have fought hard against pressure from various sides to ensure access in malaria-endemic countries to DDT.3 Hopefully, the statement now issued by the Global Malaria Programme1 will put an end to this debate, so that all countries that need DDT for malaria control will have unfettered access to use it in accordance with WHO guidelines and with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, if they are signatories to the latter.
Meanwhile, remarks from the opposite camp have not lacked passion, conveying the impression that large-scale use of DDT for malaria control, so long held hostage to misguided concerns for the environment, will now save the lives of millions of people from malaria.4 This idea is not so simple. As pointed out in WHO's new position statement, indoor residual spraying is an effective intervention, provided a programme infrastructure can be set up and maintained to include trained sprayers, supervisors, managers, stocks, equipment, and vehicles, that roads allow access to every village at the right time at least once a year, and that insecticides are not diverted to agriculture. The need to prevent diversion has been highlighted for DDT, but for malaria control it is equally important for other insecticides. Furthermore, especially in areas with intense and perennial transmission, it is essential to maintain the population's long-term acceptance of spraying once or several times a year.5
In view of the difficulties encountered in maintaining indoor residual spraying, WHO has invested substantially in exploring other methods, especially insecticide-treated bednets. These nets have been effective in many rigorous trials,6 especially to reduce childhood mortality in Africa. Few trials have compared insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying, but results so far suggest that the methods are more or less equal in efficacy.7 As pointed out by WHO,8 the two methods are similar in the way they work, although unlike indoor residual spraying, insecticide-treated nets can protect individual users or households. Few data exist for the use and cost-effectiveness of combining these two methods. In view of the substantial costs of prevention for the huge populations at risk, national programmes will generally need to choose one of these two methods for a specific geographical area.
The choice of insecticide is secondary. Since only pyrethroids can be used for insecticide-treated nets, and pyrethroid resistance is emerging as a constraint on their effectiveness,9 the fact that four classes of insecticides can be used for indoor residual spraying should be one of the main reasons justifying renewed interest in this method. In the choice between indoor residual spraying and insecticide-treated nets, a WHO study group convened in 2004 noted that the decision should, in most cases, be based on operational factors.8 Because long-lasting insecticidal nets can be managed easily with minimum risk of diversion of insecticide, for most high-burden countries that have not developed an infrastructure for indoor residual spraying, the priority will be to ensure coverage of at-risk populations with such long-lasting nets. The renewed interest in indoor residual spraying could lead to interminable debates in countries about the pros and cons of DDT. Such discussions pit sectors against politicians when, in fact, a non-partisan commitment is needed desperately to protect individuals at risk of malaria with one of the two proven methods.
I resigned my post as coordinator, vector control and prevention, of the Global Malaria Programme, WHO, on Sept 6, 2006, because of disagreements with the director of the programme about policy issues.
DDE and its parent, DDT, are reproductive toxicants for certain birds species, and major reasons for the decline of the bald eagle[2], brown pelican[3] peregrine falcon, and osprey.[4] These compounds cause egg shell thinning in susceptible species, which leads to the birds crushing their eggs instead of incubating them, due to the latters' lack of resistance.[5] Birds of prey, waterfowl, and song birds are more susceptible to eggshell thinning than chickens and related species, and DDE appears to be more potent than DDT. [...]
Some studies have indicated that DDE is an endocrine disruptor[11] and contributes to breast cancer, but more recent studies provide strong evidence that there is no relationship between DDE exposure and breast cancer.[12] What is more clear is that DDE is a weak antiandrogen[13].
Other studies found that exposure to DDE is linked to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease in humans [14]. Animal studies show that organochlorine pesticides -such as DDE- are neurotoxic, cause oxidative stress, and damage the brain's dopaminergic system [same reference].
Malaria experts at the WHO fought against allowing DDT to be used because there are equally effective methods of fighting malaria that do not involve use of carcinogenic/disease-causing DDT.
Now they have allowed DDT under tightly controlled conditions as an alternative method to fight malaria.
Last edited by sinister porpoise; 09-03-2009 at 10:57 AM.
Why are some people so upset with Obama's speech to the children?
Linear Mode
