Malaria can be curbed without DDT use
Feb 14, 2007
I wish to comment on Dr. Sam Kibende’s article published on February 13 titled, “Malaria is a silent genocide we must curb.†Malaria is as sophisticated as a butterfly. You can touch it without necessarily guaranteeing its catch.
John Ken Lukyamuzi
I wish to comment on Dr. Sam Kibende’s article published on February 13 titled, “Malaria is a silent genocide we must curb.†Malaria is as sophisticated as a butterfly. You can touch it without necessarily guaranteeing its catch.
Dr. Kibende makes three provocative statements which environmentalists cannot let pass unhindered.
That Malaria is responsible for most deaths among children below five years. This may be true, but it is also correct to say that malnutrition kills many children of that age. Malaria comes as the last stroke that breaks the back of a person who is half-way dead.
That malaria is the immediate cause of death especially among HIV/AIDS patients. This assertion negates his earlier view that children below five years die due to malaria.
If those below five years die mainly due to malnutrition, in my view the same applies to the HIV/AIDS patient who would succumb to a single malaria attack.
That malaria costs the Ugandan economy $658,200,599 annually. This is a distortion of facts. Who pays that money? The Global Fund suspended funding for malaria control following Uganda’s failure to account for previous disbursements. Is that excuse sound enough to subject us to the use of DDT?
DDT is not only globally classified as a persistent organic pollutant but something which civilised nations should feel ashamed of in the modern age. What is the outcome of the research work on HIV/AIDS now being conducted at the Joint Clinical Research Centre by Dr. Kibende and his group? They are also wasting the global research funds.
Those who attended the DDT public hearing in November last year will agree with me that NEMA’s verdict was irrelevant to the subject. The NEMA directors approved the use of DDT but with conditionalities which Uganda’s present environmental standards can hardly meet. If you want our economy to come to a standstill, apply DDT in peoples’ houses.
Uganda has ratified the Stockholm Convention. We can only be allowed to use DDT if there are no local alternatives. The alternatives to DDT were mentioned by NEMA and they include the use of mosquito nets, pyrethroids control, biological control methods and environmental sanitation options.
The writer is the President General of the Conservative Party
I wish to comment on Dr. Sam Kibende’s article published on February 13 titled, “Malaria is a silent genocide we must curb.†Malaria is as sophisticated as a butterfly. You can touch it without necessarily guaranteeing its catch.
Dr. Kibende makes three provocative statements which environmentalists cannot let pass unhindered.
That Malaria is responsible for most deaths among children below five years. This may be true, but it is also correct to say that malnutrition kills many children of that age. Malaria comes as the last stroke that breaks the back of a person who is half-way dead.
That malaria is the immediate cause of death especially among HIV/AIDS patients. This assertion negates his earlier view that children below five years die due to malaria.
If those below five years die mainly due to malnutrition, in my view the same applies to the HIV/AIDS patient who would succumb to a single malaria attack.
That malaria costs the Ugandan economy $658,200,599 annually. This is a distortion of facts. Who pays that money? The Global Fund suspended funding for malaria control following Uganda’s failure to account for previous disbursements. Is that excuse sound enough to subject us to the use of DDT?
DDT is not only globally classified as a persistent organic pollutant but something which civilised nations should feel ashamed of in the modern age. What is the outcome of the research work on HIV/AIDS now being conducted at the Joint Clinical Research Centre by Dr. Kibende and his group? They are also wasting the global research funds.
Those who attended the DDT public hearing in November last year will agree with me that NEMA’s verdict was irrelevant to the subject. The NEMA directors approved the use of DDT but with conditionalities which Uganda’s present environmental standards can hardly meet. If you want our economy to come to a standstill, apply DDT in peoples’ houses.
Uganda has ratified the Stockholm Convention. We can only be allowed to use DDT if there are no local alternatives. The alternatives to DDT were mentioned by NEMA and they include the use of mosquito nets, pyrethroids control, biological control methods and environmental sanitation options.
The writer is the President General of the Conservative Party