The US uses many. They may not be quite as effective, but they are safer. I am curious why SA is so anxious to use DDT? Is that really a majority opinion or another case of spin doctoring by a minority with a monetary motive? I might also point out that the SA government has made some rather stupid comments about AIDS that run against scientific conclusions for reasons I can not even guess. Can't remember the details now, but I remember being shocked when I heard them. It seems like it was on the magnitude of claiming the HIV virus does not cause AIDS. In any case I would not place a high value on SA technical conclusions without some corroborating statements from something like the world health organization or one of the independent international volunteer medical organizations. I'm not dismissing this issue just stating doubts about the reliability of the source.

However, I stand by earlier comments supporting the idea that DDT could have valuable uses in certain circumstances as well as other chemicals with potential hazards. A large number of chemicals we use in everyday life were either made from or with the use of some form of hazardous chemical in terms of reactivity, flammability, corrosivity, or toxicity. This is done under controlled conditions however, not indescrimanate application to the environment. Hazardous waste streams and emmisions as well as transport of hazardous materials are a side effect that most of us accept due to the good that the final products do. It's not all good or all bad but balancing the benefits versus the risks. For instance plastics manufacture may kill or harm some people, but many more are saved and far more have a better quality of life. Risk benefit trade offs are a basic part of animal life. Hunting, food gathering, and even sex often expose animals to potentially lethal consequences. It's unlikely any of these will disappear due to their benefits. 0 riskers are just plain clueless.

Regards,
Mark