There was malaria in this country at one time but I think DDT put that to rest.
Plenty of people in Africa, the Pacific and other malarial places Im sure would gladly trade the raptor species for the return of DDT.
Malaria and sickle cell are a neat example of two wrongs making a right. Ive been interested in the thought that sickle cell, a negative trait, becomes a poitive in West Africa, because the mishapen cells are less attractive to Malaria. A wrong becomes a right in some instances.
Edit - Should have read page 6 before answering I see KyPatriot and others had my point well covered.
I was up in the Wells Maine/Kennybunkport area last weekend Rachel Carson is well memorialized there. I can certainly attest to the fact there are a shitload more hawks in the area since the time I was a kid, I dont think I ever saw a hawk in the wild until the 90's (Boston area). I probably dont advocate taking the Harley servicars out of mothballs and resuming the mosquito patrols that would spray DDT into catchbasins but EEE, West Nile and who knows what else mosquito diseases are no joke in the Northeast. If DDT were effective against Lyme I think the hawks may lose some friends.
Regards the environmental movement embracing disease vectors at the expense of humanity not really shocking when someone that considers themself enligthened and elite sees value in the death of the "proletariat".
Right pmclaine, and by the way the hawks would do just fine if DDT came back. The audobon society, certainly no enemy to birds, found that their own census data showed that bird populations were increasing during the height of DDT use but no matter, the die was cast.
My point was that these same people are still around and if anything their thinking has only become more radical. A pandemic would, no pun intended, kill two birds with one stone: reduce the human population and the emergency response to the crises gives them the perfect opportunity to increase the government powers and controls they so desire. Truly an environmentalist statist's idea of a win-win.
If it sounds as if I am exaggerating, here are a few more quotes from these same agencies and people behind all the "research" science that is really environmentalist propaganda:
"Sierra Club wants a ban on pesticides, even in countries where DDT has kept malaria under control...[because by] using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without the consideration of how to support the increase in populations."
-Sierra Club director Michael in 1971 McCloskey. McCloskey was asked about this as late as 2006 and didn't deny it.
"[Any known alternative to DDT] only kills farm workers, and most of them are Mexicans and Negroes. So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any,"
-attributed to Dr. Charles Wurster, chairman of the Environmental Defense Fund's Scientific Advisory Council and a key promoter of the DDT ban by a colleague who was fired by the EDF. Wurster denies he said those exact words.
The second qoute may be spurious, but there is no denying that the general sentiment it expresses is alive and well in the environmental movement.