DDT is an effective way to combate malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa

"First of all, don't go attacking my sources when you have just about zero yourself. In fact you say "Also, as a warning, I'm not quoting anything in this. It's faster for me." " That was said for the first opening. That only pertained to the first argument, not the second nor the third. "Also, I made a mistake by not referencing my sources, so I will list them and there qualifications. My paragraph about how DDT has been around for decades and there have no bad side effects was written by Richard Tren who is the director of Africa Fighting Malaria, Jason Urbach who is a primary field researcher for Enterprise Africa, Jennifer Zambone who is the DC director of Africa Fighting Malaria, and Roger Bate who is a malaria researcher and wrote "Is DDT Safe? Considering Its Use for Malaria Control. Obviously these people are accomplished professionals who have spent years researching malaria and DDT." Actually, what you fail to list is that Africa Fighting Malaria is a Non-Governmental Organization who tries to promote DDT, but their organization has been called into question. From the Natural Resources Defense Council Magazine. Bate says, "DDT may be today's target, but it's not going to be long before chemicals that the industry cares about are added to the POPs Convention and other chemicals regulations," implying that his real motivation in promoting DDT is to advance an anti-regulation agenda.[2] Documents in the Legacy Tobacco Document Archive [2] show that Bate sought the support of the tobacco industry to establish Africa Fighting Malaria as part of a strategy to divert resources from efforts by the World Health Organization to reduce smoking. Also, Roger Bate has the following qualifications, as reported by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. -Director, Africa Fighting Malaria (U.S. and South Africa) -Fellow, International Policy Network, 2003; Director, 2001-2003 -Fellow, Institute of Economic Affairs, 2000-present; Founder and Director, IEA Environmental Unit, 1993-2003 No where in there does it say that he does work researching DDT. There is no proof that he is a 'accomplished professional' in the field of DDT. Sure, in Policies and Economic Affairs maybe, but not DDT Research. Also, you talk about Richard Tren and how he supports DDT. However, from Sourcewatch.org, he supports both DDT AND Water. Another point about Richard Tren is the fact that you talk about how he's the Director of Africa Against Malaria, but that doesn't mean anything in the form of qualification. It just means that he owns an organization that's trying to fend off Malaria in Africa. That does not mean he's a specialist in the form of DDT. Same goes for Jennifer Zambone. Now onto Jasson Urbach. You say he's a researcher for Enterprise Africa, but you fail to mention that that's not his qualification. His qualifications lay in Masters Degree in economics, which does not lead to research on DDT. He has no scientific qualifications whatsoever. The fact is, none of your sources have any scientific qualifications whatsoever, and I've proven that some even have ulterior motives for promoting DDT. "You talk about how malaria rates are rising in Africa. Where the heck did you get this information? It's a total lie." No, it's not. You forget that I continue to talk about the brackish water, and how it causes this disease to spread because of the mosquitoes. However, because of the massive flooding in Africa lately, and to come, this water will go in more places. Not only will people drink this dirty water, but it makes it extremely more accessible to mosquitoes, who can easily transfer it more easily. "DDT is saving millions of lives and will help these countries economies." You claim DDT is working in those countries you mentioned earlier in this debate, but no one sees any benefit or increase in those countries' economies. There is no impact. DDT does not link to the economy. You still can't even prove that DDT will work without harmful side effects, given by a credible source. I'd like to point out that DDT was BANNED by the United States. If the United States didn't believe that there was a legitimate reason for banning it, why would they? Think about it. They wouldn't. There was obviously some harm to using DDT, which means that they shouldn't. Also, make sure to look over my point from the last argument I made about how POISONOUS BLEACH is used to make DDT. This was untouched by the opponent. The fact is, by sending DDT over, you make a much greater risk of people dying. Period. "You then talk about how water purification is so great. Water purification will not work for malaria because mosquitoes don't always drink out of the purified water. They will drink out of the water that is just sitting around in the middle of the jungle that is not purified. DDT will kill or repel these mosquitoes whenever they comes close to people therefore saving millions of lives. Also you talk about how the United States cannot afford spraying DDT. However you even say water purification will cost 2 billion dollars while Indoor Residual Spraying of DDT by the US federal government will only cost 348 million dollars." There is no way in the world that 348 Million dollars will cover DDT Spraying to all of Sub Saharan Africa. You need to pay for the pesticide to get there, then you need all the people to go and spray it. It's hard to get to many of the people as it is. We attempt to get bednets to all the Africans, but we can't because there is no road infrastructure to take us anywhere. To be able to spray DDT and get to everyone will take time and money. A lot more money than what you're trying to advocate. You also talk about how the mosquitoes will drink water from the unpurified water that lies in the jungles. For one, can you even get people over there to spray the DDT? For two, the water purification plan, using 2 Billion Dollars, will be able to provide water sanitation to ALL of Sub Saharan Africa to meet Millenium Development Goal requirements. Not only will the mosquitoes not have dirty water to drink from, but now the African people will have clean water to cook with, bathe with, drink from, etc. This makes it extremely better for the African Lifestyle, which makes it loads better than the DDT, which has been proven to be POISONOUS to humans. Take the 2 billion dollars, and you have a surefire way to stop Malaria AND benefit the African lifestyle as it is now. "Also, all of your information about how DDT harms people pertains to when DDT was sprayed agriculturally. The dosage when used for IRS is completely different and therefore safe." The IRS is the Internal Revenue Service. This doesn't even apply, because the IRS doesn't even regulate DDT. Also, you can't prove that, because I've already proven that poisonous chemicals exist in DDT, and regardless of dosage, is harmful to humans and the environment. Thanks for an interesting round.