In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« TV Guide News Report
Idol's Melinda Doolittle Joins First Lady in Special Mission
Melinda Doolittle courtesy Fox
American Idol may be over but Idol Gives Back is still going strong. In an exclusive interview with TV Guide, Melinda Doolittle revealed she’s traveling to Africa this week with First Lady Laura Bush. The top 10 finalist will represent the reality show in an awareness campaign to help curtail the spread of malaria.
“We’re giving out half a million bed nets,” says the former backup singer, who will spend a week on the trip. “Mosquitoes normally bite between 10 pm and 4 am. So the best-case scenario is to have this net, which is interwoven with insecticides. Not only do they land on it, but they die, so they don’t spread it to other people.”
Doolittle will also perform “Amazing Grace” with a children’s choir, which she calls “a lifelong dream.”
“We think it is terrific that Melinda Doolittle is joining Mrs. Bush in Zambia," says Sally McDonough, Mrs. Bush's spokesperson. "Viewers of one of America's favorite television programs donated millions of dollars to help children and families in Africa fight malaria, and having Ms. Doolittle participate in this lifesaving indoor residual spraying and in the distribution of mosquito nets is a wonderful illustration of American generosity.” — Reporting by Dana Meltzer Zepeda
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2007 9:55 AM
|
|
Bed nets are useless, what they need is DDT. DDT is not carcinogenic and it doesn't cause thinning egg shells. It does save lives. Since the book "Silent Spring" came out, millions of people have died because of mosquito related infections. If they would just start producing DDT again and let people spray it in their homes in Africa it would save lives. It would cost less than the nets anyway.
|
|
Jun 27, 2007 10:56 AM
|
That is just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
DDT basically launched the environmental movement because of evidence of mass bird deaths and fish deaths in areas in which it was used. It is definitely dangerous, which is why it has been banned in almost every country on the planet.
|
|
Jun 27, 2007 12:15 PM
|
|
That's the spirit - let's take something positive and line a birdcage with it. At least someone is doing something - can't we be grateful for that?
|
|
Jun 27, 2007 1:33 PM
|
This is from the Cato Institute, I am sure that if you look around you will find many more similar articles. ABC's John Stossle advocated this same position on 20/20.
DDT curbs malaria in Africa, saves thousands of children's lives
Evidence shows death and infection rates rose dramatically in South Africa when DDT use was eliminated
WASHINGTON--Although misguided environmentalists are attempting to eliminate DDT worldwide, its effectiveness against malaria has been dramatically demonstrated in South Africa. That nation's ban on the use of DDT increased malaria infection and death rates. However, once the country reintroduced DDT several years later, death and infection rates dropped dramatically, underscoring the necessity of the insecticide in combating malaria throughout Africa, according to a new Cato Institute study.
Co-authors Richard Tren and Roger Bate, respectively, director of Africa Fighting Malaria, and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argue that when countries bow to international pressure and stop using DDT, the effects can be disastrous in both human and economic terms. For example, after South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Today, thanks to DDT, the number of deaths from malaria in the region is less than 50.
"DDT has not only saved lives and prevented debilitating illness; it has laid a more stable foundation for development and wealth creation in the malarial areas of South Africa," Tren and Bate write in "South Africa's War against Malaria: Lessons for the Developing World." "Malaria imposes very significant economic costs on the country, and by controlling the disease the Department of Health can assist people to complete their schooling and engage in productive work."
The authors estimate that the direct and indirect costs of malaria in South Africa were US$41 million in 2000, while two years later, after carefully monitored indoor spraying with DDT resumed, the figure fell to around US$15 million.
Although it's claimed that other compounds exist that can more safely eradicate mosquitoes carrying malaria, these newer chemicals tend to be less effective and more expensive than DDT, the latter factor key for struggling nations.
"The low cost and continued efficacy of DDT mean that within a given budget more houses can be sprayed and more people protected," Tren and Bate write. "Given the very limited financial resources that most African governments have for fighting malaria, this cost consideration is crucial."
|
|
Jun 27, 2007 4:47 PM
|
|
So what you're saying basically is that, until DDT is approved agin, we shouldn't do anything? Here's another idea along that vein - why don't we quit feeding the homeless in our towns? I mean, one meal isn't going to do anything, right, so we might as well forget the whole thing, right? SOmething is better than nothing, and until a better solution becomes legal, can we at least cheer on the ones who are doing something? There's nothing wrong with raising awareness, but it sounds to me like you would rather them do nothing if it's not efficient.
|
|
Jun 28, 2007 11:41 AM
|
|
|
