My parents and grandparents lived through this period. I suspect what you're trying to say is that the DDT connection is a myth and not that you're discounting the collective memories of an entire nation?
The pull back from DDT has had all kinds of devastating effects. For instance, bedbugs are an actual fear now, for the first time in ages.
But there has been outrage about the effects of wealthy nations that drew the benefits of DDT before banning it (like, getting rid of malaria) and now putting pressure on poorer nations to _not_ use DDT, and suffer the consequences.
"Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”
What people consistently fail to take note - Malaria is an absolutely terrible disease, killing over 1 million people/year, so even if DDT was toxic (which it's not) and only marginally helpful (Also which it's not, very helpful indoors) - it would still be worth using if it could reduce the fatality rate by even 1%. That's 10,000 human lives saved. And that doesn't even include the 200 million plus people who suffer from Malaria.
But given that DDT is neither toxic, nor ineffective, it should be used wherever appropriate.
Not toxic and not ineffective? Did you read the WHO link or see what lead to them not using DDT in Sri Lanka? There is no shortage of evidence that DDT is bad for human, that's hardly debatable (and read what you posted, it doesn't say it's safe). What is debatable is the cost benefit ratio. How many pre terms births, cancers, sterile males etc are worth it for the reduction in malaria.
Edit: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...
Not sure what I can do help you see this differently. I thought, DDT presents no health risk when used properly. was pretty straightforward.
There are a lot of important things in the world, that are absolutely essential to human health, such as DEET, which has warnings like, Ingestions of DEET have been associated with nausea, vomiting, hypotension, encephalopathy, seizure, coma, and ataxia., Ingestion of 50 mL of 100% DEET by a 33 year-old woman resulted in hyptotension, coma, seizures and death. Ingestion of 25 mL of 50% DEET by a one-year-old child resulted in coma and seizures. - but nobody in their right mind would suggest we not use DEET just because it can have negative impact on human health. It's pretty much the key to reducing mosquito bites.
Widespread outdoor spraying of DDT has some pretty significant negative effects on the environment. But there is much less debate about the cost/effectiveness of indoor residual spraying and such to reduce malaria carrying mosquitoes.
My partner is flying out to Sri Lanka on Friday for a 3 week solo tour around the country. Any places she should steer clear of? Any other tips you have would also be much appreciated.
My email is in my profile if you want to chat off thread.
Wow, then I was really lucky to have gotten dengue the last time I was in the country, 12 years ago. At the time I remember reading that there was little chance of it spreading back to the States where those mosquitoes don't exist, so I shouldn't be surprised that progress on a vaccine to cover all the strains remains slow. For better and for worse, Zika does not have that same challenge.
Another interesting thing: when DDT was banned in the 1960's, Sri Lanka's malaria cases went from 17 to half a million: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/17/ddt3/