World Vision leads the way in developing Clean Water, Hygiene Education and Sanitation in poor countries Worldwide. World Vision’s global water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)
program has a goal to eliminate this need by 2030 in all areas they serve. In 2018 World Vision’s global water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) program reached an incredible 4 million people with clean water, 2.8 million with sanitation, and 5 million with hygiene education. Using their boots on the ground, local and global partnerships approach to solving problems, they are on track to meet the ambitious goal of providing clean water to everyone in the countries they serve by 2030. See below for excerpts from their Water Global 2018 Annual Report and a link to the complete report.
“We remain committed to reaching everyone, everywhere we
work with clean water by 2030—an ambitious but achievable
goal that means reaching 50 million people between 2015 and
2030. As an interim goal—and to make sure we remain on
track—we’ve committed to reach 20 million people between
2015 and 2020. This report demonstrates that we are on
track to fulfill that commitment, having reached 12.7 million
people with clean water in the first three years of this five year
commitment.” — World Vision WATER GLOBAL ANNUAL REPORT
October 2017 through September 2018
for Full Report click here
Global Reach 2018
4 MILLION PEOPLE provided with access to clean drinking water* 2.8 MILLION PEOPLE gained access to improved household sanitation 5 MILLION PEOPLE reached with hygiene behavior-change programming
2018 ANNUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
53,830 water points built 2018 target: 38,684 Goal met: 139%
499,244 sanitation facilities built 2018 target: 465,219 Goal met: 107%
494,067 hand-washing facilities built 2018 target: 476,966 Goal met: 104%
6,735 WASH committees formed 2018 target: 6,147 Goal met: 110%
* This includes rural community water beneficiaries (3,242,291) and municipal water beneficiaries (760,023). The 4 million people with access to water represent many of the same beneficiaries that received access to sanitation facilities and behavior-change programming. Of these, 1,210,523 were reached with World Vision U.S. private funding.
A total of 12.7 million people have accessed clean drinking water since FY16, including 3.3 million who were reached with World Vision U.S. private funding since FY16.
2018 ANNUAL SPENDING
$145.6 MILLION spent on global WASH programs during 2018.
World Vision U.S. – Private Funding & Child Sponsorship ($63.9 million) 44%
Other World Vision Offices – Private Funding & Child Sponsorship ($41.1 million) 28%
Government, International, Local – Grants & Resource Development ($40.6 million) 28%
How you can help
World Vision is the go-to source for wisely investing in a healthy, promising future for developing countries worldwide. World Vision works directly with the people, unlike some other charitable organizations, which work through governments, which may be corrupt and may keep donated goods for themselves or distribute them unfairly. You can get involved through donations, working with their teams and many other ways at either World Vision.org or World Vision Philanthropy.org. You can also sponsor a child or designate one-time or monthly donations to specific needs such as medical or educational supplies, emergency food, shelter or warm clothing. Since many companies provide goods free and only the shipping cost is needed, your donation magnifies in value. A gift catalog allows you to share the cost of larger projects such as a deep water well. Please donate or volunteer to work with their teams.
Population Control by Insect Borne Diseases.
It is time to bring back DDT to save Africa and other impoverished areas. Although much maligned, DDT is Safe for Humans and the Environment according to extensive research. See evidence below.
Over 80% of infectious diseases in poor countries are carried by insects and other arthropods. DDT is desperately needed in impoverished countries where insect borne diseases kill and sicken millions every year, cutting lifespans and productivity. Africa, India, Southeast Asia, Oceana and South-Central Americas are most affected. This unpardonable crime amounts to continuing genocide of black and brown races by western powers, which is based on the myth of overpopulation.
Without these insect borne diseases and with access to clean water, populations may increase at first, but better health can facilitate the building of infrastructure and industry that can raise millions out of poverty, ignorance and hopelessness. Historically, raising people’s standard of living also stabilizes the population by reducing early childhood mortality and the need to have more children in anticipation of those loses.
“How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause, but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us.”
— Out of My Life and Thought, Dr. Albert Schweitzer (autobiography translated from Ma Vie et Ma Pensee)
Global Malaria Risk, 1900 to 2002
Most people assume that malaria is a tropical disease, but before DDT was introduced and widely used for 30 years, malaria was prevalent worldwide as far north as Siberia. DDT worked so well that malaria and similar insect borne diseases were eradicated in most developed countries and were near eradication in poorer countries where it was used prior to DDT being banned in 1972 by the EPA. In spite of an overwhelming body of research that failed to find any harm to humans or the environment DDT was banned for political reasons. See evidence and references below.
“To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It has contributed to the great increase in agricultural productivity, while sparing countless humanity from a host of diseases, most notably, perhaps, scrub typhus and malaria. Indeed, it is estimated that, in little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable. Abandonment of this valuable insecticide should be undertaken only at such time and in such places as it is evident that the prospective gain to humanity exceeds the consequent losses. At this writing, all available substitutes for DDT are both more expensive per crop-year and decidedly more hazardous.”
— National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy, The Life Sciences: Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs, The World of Biological Research, Requirements for the Future (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1970), 432. (Emphasis added)
Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, was filled with lies, half-truths, misinterpretation of research results and wild speculations. Rather than being an attempt to protect humans and the environment as stated, it was really part of an anti-human, anti-progress movement with a goal of stopping assumed overpopulation, especially in Africa, India and other impoverished countries.
The Population Bomb by Paul Erilich (1968) was a book based on Malthusian, eugenicist, racist lies, aka propaganda, that claimed worldwide catastrophic starvation would occur unless the global population was immediately reduced. None of it was true.
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…”
— Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968
Population control groups such as the Club of Rome, supported by charitable foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation, continue to spread the myth of overpopulation. Many rural areas have too few healthy people to build roads and other infrastructure, and develop industry.
“My own doubts came when DDT was introduced for civilian use. In Guyana, within two years it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”
—Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome, 1990
DDT was a God-send to millions at the end of WWII, saving millions. Among other uses, it was administered directly onto soldiers’ and refugee’s clothing as a powder to fight body lice, ending a deadly Typhus epidemic. There were no reports of harm in this practice. It was used in developed countries to fight deadly diseases and agriculturally to increase food and fiber production. However in 1972 DDT was banned by US EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence presented at hearings that refuted claims of harm by activist groups such as Environmental Defense Fund and Audubon Society.
“DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife…and…there is a present need for essential uses of DDT.”
— EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney, after months of hearings, “In the Matter of Stevens Industries, Inc., et al., L.F. & R. Docket Nos. 63, et al.). Hearing Examiner’s Recommended Findings, Conclusions, and Orders, April 1972.” (40 CFR 164.32). (Consolidated DDT Hearings) As summarized in Barrons, May 1, 1972. Source: J. Gordon Edwards, “DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 9, Number 3, Fall 2004
Beginning in the 1970’s, agencies such as USAID, UN WHO, UNESCO and the World Bank pressured leaders of poor countries to discontinue DDT as a prerequisite to receiving essential aid. This continues to the present with exception of the UN WHO recently allowing limited spraying of interior walls in selected areas of Africa. Leaders of most poor countries felt they had no choice but to discontinue its use. India did not comply and has continued to manufacture and use DDT to periodically spray interior walls in malaria prone areas.
Although DDT is the most studied pesticide on the planet, it is still listed as an environmental toxin and possible carcinogen because the EPA listing has not changed, in spite of all of the studies that failed to find harmful effects on humans or the environment. It is much safer to handle and use, and more economical than any of the replacements.
Verifying the Claims of Silent Spring
None of Rachel Carson’s “facts” about environmental and human harm were true. Most of the facts below, except where noted, are from “DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud,” by J. Gordon Edwards, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004. (See link below.)
Dr. Edwards, who had been a witness in the EPA hearings, examined each of Silent Spring’s claims and found them wrong and possibly fraudulent. In his report, Dr. Edwards cites the many scientific studies on which his conclusions were based and lists them as references so that the sources can be examined by the reader.
Not one person has been harmed or died from DDT.
- The only death associated with DDT was a 3 yr. old child that drank a solution of DDT in kerosene, which is a hydrocarbon known to be toxic.
- DDT in high doses can cause temporary, reversible tremors and liver changes.
- Gordon Edwards was a PhD entomologist who sometimes ate a spoonful of DDT powder at his lectures as a demonstration of its safety. He suffered no significant ill effects and died of a heart attack at age 84 while hiking in the Rockies.
DDT is not carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic
- “Workers in the Montrose Chemical Company had 1,300 man-years of exposure, and there was never any case of cancer during 19 years of continuous exposure to about 17mg/man/day.”
- “Concerns were sometimes raised about possible carcinogenic effects of DDT, but instead its metabolites were often found to be anti-carcinogenic, significantly reducing tumors in rats.”
- Expected rise in leukemia in children and breast cancer years later in girls exposed during puberty never happened.
DDT is not an endocrine disrupter or estrogen mimic
- Examples cited for this claim were of Alligators in a heavily polluted lake in Florida which showed smaller penises, but the lake received sewage which contained birth control hormones from the city of Winter Garden and other farm pollutants.
- Other research failed to find any cause and effect link to DDT, although activists and some international organizations still claim this without evidence.
Bird deaths, thin egg shells and buildup in the environment have proven to be false.
- Bird deaths at the University of Michigan, cited by Carson, were not from DDT, but were probably from soil fungicide containing mercury. In later tests, mercury was found in the soil and earthworms there. Other areas did not experience bird deaths from spraying of DDT. Carson’s Source was: Bird Mortality in the Dutch elm disease program in Michigan, Bulletin 41, Cranebrook Institute of Science by George John Wallace; Walter P Nickell; Richard F Bernard
- “The counts of raptorial birds migrating over Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, indicated that there were many more hawks there during the “DDT years” than previously. The numbers counted there increased from 9,291 in 1946 (before much DDT was used) to 13,616 in 1963 and 29,765 in 1968, after 15 years of heavy DDT use.”
- According to Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts, bird populations actually increased during the thirty years of DDT use. Numbers rose from 90 birds seen per observer in 1941 to 971 birds seen per observer in 1960. Other examples are given in Edwards’ report.
- The eggshell thinning studies cited by Carson could not be replicated and had actually reduced dietary calcium, which is needed to build egg shells, of experimental birds to get that result.
- Museum specimens compared to wild population eggs may have led to false claims of thinning because the museums used the best specimens available; natural variability in the wild may have been interpreted as thinning.
- DDT is not metabolized by birds and is rapidly excreted in their droppings.
- “The whole idea that pesticides are concentrated as one moves up the food chain, which is crucial to Carson’s arguments about distant and delayed effects, has become increasingly dubious in the years that followed,” Donald Fleming quote from “Roots of the New Conservation Movement,” 1972, in “Reading Rachel Carson” by Charles T. Rubin, The New Atlantis, September 27, 2012.
- DDT attaches to soil particles and does not migrate to ground water or streams due to this attachment and its insolubility in water. EPA and CDC report that soil DDT has a half-life of 2 to 15 years due to sunlight and microbial action. Reports of longer persistence are probably mis-identification of other chlorinated substances by a non-specific test. Supposedly, DDT, which is not present in nature, was found in museum soil samples collected before it was even invented. Obviously, a mis-identification.
- Note that “presence” does not imply harm as some advocacy groups claim. Before it was banned, DDT was widely used in agriculture and for open air fogging in malaria prone areas.
Aquatic life has not been harmed by DDT; it is practically insoluble in water, with only 1.2 ppb (parts per billion) at saturation.
- A study cited by Carson claimed 500 ppb DDT in seawater inhibited photosynthesis and killed algae. The problem with this study is that alcohol was added to the tank to dissolve the DDT in the water. Alcohol alone would cause the observed effect.
- The assumption of persistence of DDT in seawater for decades was also challenged. Tests showed DDT and its metabolites disappeared in as few as 38 days from microbial action and other factors.
- “DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud,” by J. Gordon Edwards, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004. Available online at: http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
- “The Lies of Rachel Carson,” J. Gordon Edwards, 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine. Transcript of speech at 21st Century Science meeting, summer, 1992. Available online at https://21sci-tech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html
- “The Truth about DDT and Silent Spring” by Robert Zubrin, adapted from Robert Zubrin’s book Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism,” published in 2012, in New Atlantis Books series. Online at: www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-ddt-and-silent-spring
- “Reading Rachel Carson” by Charles T. Rubin, The New Atlantis, September 27, 2012; available online at https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/reading-rachel-carson
 “The global distribution and population at risk of malaria: past, present, and future,” Simon I Hay et al, Lancet Volume 4, Issue 6, p327-336, June 1, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(04)01043-6
 Federal Register vol. 37, no. 13, Friday, July 7, 1972. Environmental Protection Agency [I. F. & R. Docket Nos. 63, etc.] Consolidated DDT Hearings, Opinion and Order of the Administrator …William D. Ruckelshaus, June 30, 1972.
 Actual text from 40 CFR 164.32, Environmental Protection Agency, Consolidated DDT Hearings, Hearing Examiner’s Recommended Findings, Conclusions, and Orders, April 1972. p. 93-94; Conclusions of Law: findings are as follows: (omitted 1-8 which are about adequacy of the evidence and finding that DDT was not misbranded.) “9. DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. 10. DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man. 11. The uses of DDT under the registrations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife.” (omitted 12-16 that discuss other evidence and that vacated earlier rulings of misbranding) “17. There is a present need for the continued use of DDT for the essential uses defined in this case.” A photocopy of the original is available as a downloadable pdf file at https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120926_SweeneyDDTdecision.pdf
If you like this post share it with your friends, and sign up to follow my blog by email at http://Savingafricafromliesthatkill.com. Thank you.
The book: Saving Africa from Lies that Kill: How Myths about the Environment and Overpopulation are Destroying Third World Countries is available in print and eBook online at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books a Million and in bookstores.
If you like the book, please leave a review online at Amazon.com or other outlet.
Award-Winning Finalist in the Social Change category of the 2019 International Book Awards
Read the first chapter free through Bookfunnel at www.bit.ly/
International Organizations Deny Essential Services to Control Poor Countries, Part 1.
Most people assume that trusted international leaders and nonprofit organizations would value life and want to raise the standard of living and lifespans of people in less developed cultures. This has apparently not been the case for many internationally recognized governmental and non-governmental agencies. Among the preponderance of international organizations, the focus is on reducing the population and maintaining the status quo, not on humanitarian aid or developing underdeveloped cultures. Although this is slowly changing through various charitable organizations, most official international agencies give only enough aid and support to barely sustain the under-privileged, but not enough to raise their standard of living, develop their infrastructure or change their long range outcome. It has repeatedly been demonstrated that raising the standard of living and health of impoverished peoples is the best way to both stabilize the population and protect the environment.
For those dealing with high infant and childhood mortality and struggling to feed their families, high birth rates in anticipation of those losses, and to provide farm labor for subsistence farming along with an inability and unwillingness to protect the environment are the natural consequences. Destitute people will do whatever is deemed necessary to survive, including harming the environment. You would, too. Thus, progressive policies that keep indigenous peoples in their poverty and squalor for “cultural preservation” or to “save the planet” have the opposite effect of their stated ends of preserving the environment and improving human life.
Many international organizations propagate drastic population control measures under the radar while publicly advocating and providing (some) aid to the poor and endorsing environmental concerns. This includes governmental and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) such as UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), UNFPA (United Nations Fund for Population Activities), The World Bank, USAID (United States Agency for International Development), the Club of Rome and its many spin-offs, Worldwide Fund for Nature, formerly called World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Green Peace, Population Council, International Planned Parenthood Federation, and many others. Many of these organizations swap and share members and leaders, and cooperate to help each other toward common population control goals.
The Population Control agenda is rooted in the Eugenics movement that considered brown and black people to be inferior to the white race. When that became unpopular, they hid this origin and emphasized the overpopulation myth and population control “for the good of the planet.” Meanwhile they still maintaining an attitude that brown and black people are incapable of improvement and need to be taken care of and led. This is a pernicious lie! The present state of environmental and economic suppression and control is still a form of colonialism. There is hope for Africa and other underdeveloped countries to become economically independent, but priorities and attitudes must change.
The Club of Rome describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” Its members includes current and former heads of state, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists and business leaders from around the globe. Ostensively a charitable organization, it really advocates for control of population in underdeveloped countries as its primary goal and attempts to influence governments through its high-level members. In 1972 it published a report entitled The Limits to Growth. In its own words, its mission is “to act as a global catalyst for change through the identification and analysis of the crucial problems facing humanity and the communication of such problems to the most important public and private decision makers as well as to the general public.” As such, it has been one of the primary promoters of government and NGO policies limiting reproduction in poor countries by withholding aid and loans unless strict population control measures are in place.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (emphasis added)
— The Club of Rome
Although, as a part of the population control agenda, people in developed countries have been encouraged into voluntary sterilization, birth control and abortions, especially among the low income populations , the main focus is on targeting the poorest and most vulnerable people in underdeveloped countries. Aid money to impoverished nations is often linked to a demand for population control quotas on mandatory (forced or coerced) sterilizations, implantation of IUDs and injected birth control chemicals for the poorest people. This is the ugly secret hidden behind the humanitarian image projected for donations. Their websites and other publications hide this agenda under euphemistic and colorful terms such as “family planning,” “research” and “improving the lives of the poor.”
In addition to enforced sterilization, abortion and birth control methods, other means of limiting both population and life span have been applied and are often tied to reception or denial of aid. See below for summary and more detail in Part 2 in next post; the list includes denial or failure to provide/ promote :
- DDT for control of insect borne diseases. (80% of diseases) Aid denied unless banned. See DDT Needed Now in Underdeveloped Countries for safety information. DDT was demonized and banned for political, not scientific, reasons.
- Power Plants except unreliable (aka green) wind and solar. (IPCC/UN/ World Bank deny funds for all but wind and solar.)
- Clean Water and Sanitation to reduce diseases. Some charities are trying to fix this.
- Transportation: roads and railroads for access to markets, industry/employment and clinics
- Modern agriculture is discouraged in favor of slash & burn subsistence (so-called “sustainable”) agriculture that causes land depletion and deforestation.
- Access to EU markets is denied if genetically modified or high yield crops are grown
- Industry investment outlook is poor due to high absenteeism from disease (see DDT)
- Medicine: poor facilities and supplies, except for sterilization and birth control supplies
- Education: failure to train in hygiene, child care, agriculture, trades and small business
- HIV/AIDS diagnosis without confirmation as excuse for not treating TB, Malaria, etc.
- Cultural Preservation in toto is encouraged, rather than economic development.
- Political Unrest is allowed to persist that discourages involvement by charities, investors.
- Anti-Colonial Propaganda is used to scare people from accepting assistance/expertise.
Of these, disease control and electrical power are the most important because they can facilitate many of the other items on the list, and kick-start the economy. A healthy workforce and power to run industry, business, medical facilities and transportation are key to economic development. Although many African countries need foreign aid and international loans now, the goal should be to help them raise their economy to the point where they are net contributors to the world economy or at least are self sufficient. Longterm gov’t to gov’t foreign aid props up corrupt dictators instead of developing infrastructure, encouraging investments and raising the economy. Accountability is needed. Developing countries need Infrastructure, Investment, Education, Employment and Disease Control, not handouts that keep them dependent.
 Photo from WUWT, post reposted here: How Environmental Organizations Are Destroying The Environment
 The population control agenda has been so successful in developed countries that for many countries birth rates are below replacement levels of 2+ children per couple. This is becoming a problem for countries like Japan and Germany where employment quotas for even essential services are hard to fill and an aging population is dependent on the care of fewer offspring. This will remain a problem until birth rates rise again to above replacement rates.
If you like this post share it with your friends, and sign up to follow my blog by email at http://Savingafricafromliesthatkill.com. Thank you.
The book: Saving Africa from Lies that Kill: How Myths about the Environment and Overpopulation are Destroying Third World Countries is available in print and eBook online at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books a Million and in bookstores. If you like the book, please leave a review online at Amazon.com or other outlet.
Read the first chapter free through Bookfunnel at www.bit.ly/
This is the second in my Modern Mythology Series. My first book, Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy has Corrupted Science was published in 2016. It is available in print and ebook, on line only, through World Net Daily store, Amazon, Books-A-Million and Barnes & Noble. See the companion blog at www.realscienceblog.com for related posts and pages.
The rural poor in developing countries need immediate solutions for improved health and economic development. Education is at the root of most of these solutions and most can be quickly implemented. Among immediate solutions are the following:
1. Education. The number one need is education. All other improvements spring from that knowledge. For example, with a knowledge and understanding that invisible microbes and worm eggs cause disease, measures can be undertaken to reduce or eliminate them from water, food and surroundings. If the people believe diseases are caused by witchcraft or other capricious magic, there is no incentive to improve their infrastructure. Once they understand that there are logical causes for diseases and that solutions are possible, improvements will be inevitable.
2. Clean Water. This can be accomplished without electricity by inhabitants if they are shown how. Clean water wells, low sand dams, slow sand filters or similar clean water resources will go a long way toward eliminating the number one killer of infants and young children, diarrhea from contaminated water. If you understood that giving your babies and toddlers contaminated surface water could make them very sick or kill them, you would gladly do whatever it takes to avoid that source or to purify the water before drinking it, and you would want to help provide and maintain other sources of clean water. They would too.
3. Sanitation. Digging pit toilets can end open defecation and disposal of raw human waste in fields, which can reduce water contamination, illness and parasites from these sources. Human and animal wastes can still be used on fields for fertilizer, but only after composting for months or a year to eliminate harmful microbes and worm eggs. Ending open defecation and wearing shoes can end most worm infestations. Composting before using manure has an added bonus because raw or “green” manure can harm plants unless allowed time to decompose. Otherwise it can “burn” plants. NOTE: “green manure” as used here is historical terminology for poorly decomposed or raw manure. Under new terminology, green manure refers to plant material that is composted.
4. Insect and Disease Control. Here again, education is important for understanding measures to prevent mosquito breeding and to protect themselves from bites. DDT and other insecticides offer real hope for reducing or eliminating insect vectored diseases. Bed nets treated with insecticides will reduce bites on sleeping people, but that is only part of the answer. Flies, fleas, lice, ticks and mites also carry many diseases, so elimination of these insects from within the home is important. Diseases and parasites can be cured with medicines and medical facilities, ending the cycle of spreading diseases.
5. Roads. Passable roads are important to break the isolation trap. Many road improvements can be done gradually by villagers if there are enough healthy people and incentive to do the work. Roads are important to be able to get to medical facilities and for access to markets to sell their crops. Roads connected to towns are important to attract industry and investment in rural areas.
6. Electricity. Access to electricity or gas for cooking and heating can reduce indoor air pollution from bio-based cooking fires and facilitate water purification for homes, schools, clinics and hospitals. With electricity, houses can be closed against insect entry by using screens and fans for cooling. With electricity, refrigeration is possible for safe storage of foods. Electrification usually needs input from outside the village to accomplish. Mini and micro loans can be used to build local low capacity hydroelectric dams/waterfalls or diesel power plants and medium to low voltage transmission lines locally. All other short-term solutions listed here can be accomplished very quickly by knowledgeable, healthy, and trained inhabitants. Again, education is the key. Teaching local people how the do these things will go a long way toward raising their standard of living, improving their quality of life, providing a healthy workforce, lowering under-five mortality, providing a healthy workforce and raising life expectancy.
Details, instructions and explanations of each of these solutions can be found in my book Saving Africa From Lies That Kill: How Myths about the Environment and Overpopulation Are Destroying Third World Countries. It is available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-a-Million and similar outlets in print and as eBook. After reading it, share it with others and send a copy to other people that can help implement these measures. Please, also leave a review on Amazon. Your review will help to get a wider exposure for distribution of this important message.
Don’t forget to sign up to my blog with your email address to receive updates.
My new book, Saving Africa From Lies That Kill: How Myths about the Environment and Overpopulation are Destroying Third World Countries is now available online and in book stores everywhere. In print and eBook through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books a Million. Note: some bookstores may not have it yet, but asking for them to order it for you will help to get it on the shelves faster.
From the back cover: In Saving Africa From Lies That Kill, Kay Kiser exposes the long-standing crimes committed against developing nations by the United Nations, World Bank, USAID and Planned Parenthood. Under their guise of “aid,” these organizations mire the underprivileged in isolation, poverty, sickness, and ignorance.
In her book, Kiser argues:
•Poverty, not overpopulation, causes environmental damage. Higher standards of living and lower infant mortality can improve the environment and stabilize the population.
•Developing nations need access to reliable electricity in order to end energy poverty. This will, in turn, provide clean water, develop transportation, and power hospitals, homes and industrial investment.
•Africans aren’t lazy; they’re weakened from malaria, parasites and dysentery. They need insect and disease control for a healthy workforce.
•The Green Revolution and modern agriculture can feed everyone and end deforestation.
Fortunately, you can do something about the problem—and Kiser shows you how!
After reading the book, please remember to review it on Amazon; share it with a friend and do your part to end bad practices. Visit my blog for more information and to sign up for email updates at https://savingafricafromliesthatkill.com/ and like my Facebook page.
The African Development Bank (www.AfDB.org) has called on development partners to scale up support for implementation of sanitation programs to fast track Africa’s progress and deliver on its promise to the continent. “Achieving the Ngor Commitments and the ambitious targets for sanitation and hygiene within the Global Development Agenda can only become a reality if […]
Uber-organic campaign enshrines primitive agriculture and malnutrition as human rights
Paul Driessen and David Wojick
Friday, July 20, 2018, 11:11:47 PM
Not every poor person in impoverished places around the world aspires to the modern living standards they see and hear about: indoor plumbing, electricity for lights, a refrigerator and stove, a paucity of disease-carrying insects, top-notch schools and hospitals, their children living past age five. But many do.
Not every poor African, Asian or Latin American farmer wants to give up his backbreaking, dawn to dusk traditional agricultural practices, guiding his ox and plow, laying down meager supplies of manure to fertilize crops, surviving droughts, repeatedly hand spraying pesticides to battle ravenous insects – to reap harvests that often barely feed his family, much less leave produce to sell locally. But many do.
Unfortunately, they often face formidable foes. An absence of electricity, roads and other infrastructure. Corrupt, kleptocratic governments. Nonexistent property rights and other collateral to secure loans. Powerful, well-financed eco-imperialists whose policies perpetuate poverty, malnutrition and disease.
Banks and other carbon colonialists glorify limited wind and solar energy for poor villages, while denying financial support for fossil fuel electricity generation. Anti-chemical fanatics promote bed nets and narrowly defined “integrated pest management,” but bitterly oppose chemical pesticides and the spatial repellant DDT to kill mosquitoes, keep them out of homes and prevent deadly malaria.
Radical organic food groups battle any use of genetically engineered crops that multiply crop yields, survive droughts and slash pesticide spraying by 75% or more. They even vilify Golden Rice, which enables malnourished children to avoid Vitamin A Deficiency, blindness and death.
Now poor country families face even harder struggles, as a coalition of well-financed malcontents, agitators and pressure groups once again proves the adage that power politics makes strange bedfellows. Coalition members share a deep distaste for fossil fuels, chemical pesticides and fertilizers, corporations, capitalism, biotechnology, and virtually all aspects of modern agriculture.
Their growing social-political movement is called “AgroEcology.” While the concept is studiously vague, it essentially asserts that indigenous, traditional farmers must be shielded from market forces and modern technologies, so that they can continue using ancient, primitive, “culturally appropriate” methods.
AgroEcology is anti-GMO organic food activism on steroids. It rejects virtually everything that has enabled modern agriculture to feed billions more people from less and less acreage and, given the chance, could eliminate hunger and malnutrition worldwide. It is rabidly opposed to biotechnology, monoculture farming, non-organic fertilizers and chemical insecticides – and even despises mechanized equipment like tractors, and the hybrid seeds and other advances developed by Dr. Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution.
AgroEcology advocates tortured but clever concepts like “food sovereignty” and the “right to subsistence farming by indigenous people.” It promotes “indigenous agricultural knowledge and practices,” thus excluding the vast storehouse of non-indigenous learning, practices and technologies that were developed in recent centuries – and are readily available to anyone with access to a library or internet connection.
Or as they put it: “Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies, rather than the demands of markets and corporations.” Food sovereignty also “focuses on production and harvesting methods that maximize the contribution of ecosystems, avoid costly and toxic inputs, and improve the resiliency of local food systems in the face of climate change.” (The 2007 Declaration of Nyéléni, the first global forum on food sovereignty. In Mali!)
Some adherents even seek the “re-peasantization” of Latin American society!
AgroEcology has the financial backing of far-left foundations like the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, which collectively have committed more than $500 million to a raft of like-minded NGOs.
Its precepts and policies are approved and actively promoted by the Food and Agriculture Organization, World Bank and other UN agencies at their taxpayer-funded international conferences. These agencies are even beginning to demand adherence to über-organic practices as a condition for receiving taxpayer funding for agricultural development programs in Africa, Asia and Latin America. (But taxpayers and legislators who provide the funding have been permitted little substantive input on any of this.)
It’s all justified – and often accepted without question in government agencies and universities – by reference to the politically correct, virtue-signaling terminology of our era: sustainability, sustainable farming, dangerous manmade climate change, social justice, indigenous rights, self-determination.
Also typical, anyone opposing these ideologies, policies and demands is vilified as a “willful supporter” of violence against women, “land-grabbing” by multinational corporations, peasant farmer suicides, “mass expropriation and genocide” of indigenous people, and crimes against humanity.
Imagine how intolerant AgroEcology ideologues would react if a farmer wanted to assert his or her food sovereignty and self-determination – by planting hybrid corn, using modern synthetic fertilizers or (heaven forbid) planting Bt corn (maize), to get higher yields, spend less time in the field, spray fewer pesticides, or improve the family’s living standards by selling surplus crops. And yet many want to do exactly that.
“By planting the new Bt cotton on my six hectares [15 acres], I was able to build a house and give it a solar panel,” Bethuel Gumede told the late Roy Innis, then chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality, during a trip to South Africa. “I also bought a TV and fridge. My wife can buy healthy food, and we can afford to send the kids to school. My life has changed completely.”
“I grow maize on a half hectare,” Elizabeth Ajele told him. “The old plants would be destroyed by insects, but not the new biotech plants. With the profits I get from the new Bt maize, I can grow onions, spinach and tomatoes, and sell them for extra money to buy fertilizer. We were struggling to keep hunger out of our house. Now the future looks good.”
Equally relevant, how can agricultural practices that barely sustained families and villages before the advent of modern agriculture possibly feed the world? As Dr. Borlaug said in 2006: “Our planet has 6.5 billion people. If we use only organic fertilizers and methods on existing farmland, we can only feed 4 billion. I don’t see 2.5 billion people volunteering to disappear.”
AgroEcology promoters like Greenpeace, Food & Water Watch, Pesticide Action Network, Union of Concerned scientists and La Via Campesina (The Peasant Way) pay little attention to any of this. They’re too busy “saving people” from “dangerous” hybrid seeds, GMOs, agribusiness, farm machinery and chemicals. Not that any of them would ever want to toil on any of the primitive farms they extol.
Greenpeace frightens Africans by claiming “some researchers think DDT and DDE could be inhibiting lactation” in nursing mothers. So families are afraid to use DDT, and millions die from preventable malaria, while still more millions suffer permanent brain or liver damage from the disease. Would it also oppose cancer-curing chemotherapy because it causes hair loss and reduced resistance to infections?
Modern instruments can detect chemicals in mere parts per billion (the equivalent of a few seconds in 32 years) or even parts per trillion (a few seconds in 32,000 years). That’s hardly a threat to human health.
But Luddite eco-imperialists and über-organic food activists stridently oppose any manmade fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, while saying “natural” pesticides commonly used by organic farmers are safe. In reality, copper sulfate can kill humans in lower doses per kilogram of body weight than aspirin, and exposure to rotenone causes Parkinson’s Disease-like symptoms in rats and can also kill humans.
UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, US and EU government agencies, and real human rights advocates should challenge and denounce AgroEcology agitators and their financial enablers for advancing fraudulent claims that perpetuate malnutrition, poverty and human rights abuses in the world’s poorest countries. They should also cut off funding to any government agencies that support AgroEcology nonsense.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of books and articles on energy, climate change and economic development. David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science and logic in public policy.
For original article go to Luddite eco-imperialists claim to be virtuous
Do 80% of Nigerians lack safe drinking water? It’s worse than that
Close to 80% of Nigerians lack potable water.
Source: Journalist Dele Sobowale (May 2018)
90.8% of Nigerians’ household drinking water contaminated by E coli bacteria.
- A journalist recently claimed that over 80% of Nigerians lack water that is suitable for drinking.
- A large survey of households published in 2017 found that 90.8% of Nigerians’ drinking water contained some level of E coli bacteria.
- Only 3.7% of Nigerians had good access to clean water that was completely safe to drink.
To continue reading and for more details, see the original article at Africa Check
The Table in the article is from “Nigeria Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2016-17Survey Finding Report October, 2017″
The global MICS programme was developed by UNICEF in the 1990s as an international household survey programme to support countries in the collection of internationally comparable data on a wide range of indicators on the situation of children and women.
Slow Sand Filters for water purification
Slow sand filters are one of the easiest ways to clean water of pathogens and colloidal particles. Building a slow sand filter for home use requires little beyond local materials. A good manual I found that explains the finer points of operation and construction is “Biosand Filter Construction Manual” through CAWST Center for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology that can be downloaded as a pdf file at https://resources.cawst.org/construction-manual/a90b9f50/biosand-filter-construction-manual
UV purification of drinking water
UV from sunlight will kill most bacteria and parasites in six to ten hours in clear plastic one to two liter soda or water bottles if the water is clear. Prefiltering is recommended. Laying bottles on a reflective surface will enhance purification. Larger bottles are not recommended because UV from sunlight is reduced by traveling through a greater depth of water. The larger the bottle, the longer it takes to purify. Source of the image is UNICEF
Additional water filtration and purification information is available in my book Saving Africa from Lies That Kill on Amazon and on this blog site.
A surge in cases in 2016 prompted WHO to announce that progress against the disease had stalled. More resources must be invested in the fight, leaders and experts say. Elsewhere, community health workers recruited in their own remote communities have seen great success Zimbabwe was honoured on January 28th for leading the way to a […]