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

I'm basically going to put your points in quotes, and then put my points in after yours. "First, you are saying the United States sets the standard for what is good and bad. Well, using your standard I guess DDT is good since it actually IS being sprayed by the United States. The United States federal government is spraying DDT in Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Zambia. DDT is also being sprayed in South Africa and Swaziland. Uganda and other African countries are preparing to add DDT to indoor-spraying programs. In countries where DDT has been sprayed, deaths as a result of malaria have decreased by astonishing numbers." You talk about how DDT is being sprayed in these countries which are in South Africa. However, malaria rates are increasing in the area. From the Independent Online, malaria rates are expected to increase in countries including Angola, Mozambique, Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia and Madagascar. If you claim that DDT is solving, and eradicating the disease, why don't we see decreased prevalence of the disease in the countries that you claim DDT is being sprayed in? The fact is, DDT is NOT causing Malaria to decrease. It's not doing anything. Why should the United States, while they're in their huge debt right now, spend money on something that is not working to send to Africa, only to cause worse effects? The answer? It shouldn't. "DDT has been around for decades. Millions have been exposed, and health issues are extremely rare. Since the discovery of DDT countless millions of people have been exposed to DDT in one way or another. In the 1940s many people were deliberately exposed to high concentrations of DDT through dusting programs or impregnation of clothes, without any apparent ill effect. Thousands of tons have been produced and distributed throughout the world and millions of people have come into direct contact with DDT. A plethora of studies were conducted with regards to DDT's safety for humans. Indeed if the huge amounts of DDT used are taken into account, the safety record for human beings is extremely good." For one, what's the source that you get this from? How credible can it be? Where are the plethora of studies that you refer to? According to Fox News, they say that Chlorine Bleach is extremely deadly, not only to fish. It's harmful to everyone. Going down the article, it talks about what DDT is made of. Guess what's one of the ingredients to make this pesticide? Bleach. "Next I will show DDT does not harm the environment. Indoor residual spraying of DDT is not used in high enough concentrations to cause adverse ecological effects. DDT became emblematic of the toxics movement because of its effects on the non-human environment. The fault for this lies in the massive agricultural use of DDT. Dusting a single cotton field, for example, can require more than 1,100 kg of DDT over 4 weeks. In contrast, DDT spraying for malaria control is less intensive, less frequent and far more contained. The current practice is to spray the interior surfaces only of houses at risk. Half a kilogram can treat a large house and protect all its inhabitants. The dosage of DDT applied for indoor residual spraying is completely different and has no environmental side effects. In fact bird populations have increased since DDT has been sprayed." Again, where is the proof on this? Also, you can cross-apply my response to the DDT not harmful to humans. It's relatively the exact same point. "Finally you said that water purification was the solution to solving the problem. What you are saying is that if you cannot solve the malaria problem completely then nothing should be done. Sure, indoor residual spraying of DDT will not completely eradicate malaria, but it will save millions of lives every year with no bad side effects. You are just advocating an all or nothing situation." That is not true. I'm saying that Water purification is a better solution. It's also an alternative cause to the increase of malaria to your solution. Alternative cause means that there's a reason that malaria is spreading, and that DDT will not stop it. As I have already proven, DDT is not stopping the Malaria rates. Why spend more money on something that is known not to work and is know to be harmful to the environment, causing more problems? The water sanitation route would be the best way to go. From a card cut from a debate handbook, the source can be given to you later if you want it (because the card right now is in my car, which my mom drove to get groceries), it specifically states that 2 billion is needed to solve to water Sanitation in Sub Saharan Africa to meet the Millenium Development goals. Malaria is known to be spread through brackish water, according to the World Health Organization. Therefore, we should drop your plan, which is not going to work, and go for something that will.