But the outright ban, instead of large restrictions, of DDT has led to an increase in malaria. How do you support your conclusion that an increase in malaria deaths is “complete nonsense”?

Because that’s bullshit. There has been no increase in malaria deaths, because DDT was never restricted for the purposes of malaria control, not even in the US, and most certainly not in countries where malaria is an actual problem.
This idea that Carson is responsible for thousands/millions/billions preventable death due to malaria is completely made up.

I am willing to argue the finer points. But the fact remains that DDT was one of the best anti-mosquito pesticides ever. Bringing it back in even limited quantities would help reduce the mosquito population and therefore, malaria.

That’s not true either. It’s one of the most lethal general biocides, maybe, but as a means of controlling insect populations, it’s woefully inadequate.
And this is exacerbated by the fact that mosquitos in many malarial countries are already resistant (if not totally resistant, then at the very least much more so than they were fifty years ago).

Here is a question for you: would you be willing to trade one, just one species of birds for the lives of 100,000 children?

You don’t understand how the ecosystem works. The loss of one species of bird can cause a tremendous increase in the number of insects that have suddenly lost their main natural predator, thereby causing far more harm in lost crops even in the semi-long run.

Also, did you take the time to read the articles I listed in my post?

What, the National Review ones? Yes, I read them. And I’ve read a lot of other drivel the National Review has put out over the years, and all of it is about as connected to reality as the idea that the world travels on the back of a turtle is.
The National Review articles weren’t written to mount decent arguments; they were written to misinform the ignorant and the gullible.

Try actually checking out the facts, and the science.

I feel you missed the point of my post. Large-scale DDT applications like were done in the 50’s and 60’s were a detriment to the environment. I am not so sure about to people. I will look into this further.

But the outright ban, instead of large restrictions, of DDT has led to an increase in malaria. How do you support your conclusion that an increase in malaria deaths is “complete nonsense”?

I am willing to argue the finer points. But the fact remains that DDT was one of the best anti-mosquito pesticides ever. Bringing it back in even limited quantities would help reduce the mosquito population and therefore, malaria.

I don’t think banning large-scale use of DDT was a bad thing, I’m just saying that a total ban has caused other side effects.

Here is a question for you: would you be willing to trade one, just one species of birds for the lives of 100,000 children?

Just curious.

Also, did you take the time to read the articles I listed in my post?