This is ridiculous:
The UK is to be hit by regular malaria outbreaks, fatal heatwaves and contaminated drinking water within five years because of global warming, the Government has warned the NHS.
Five years? Someone\’s lost the plot here. Further:
While the authors say the UK has proved able to cope with major heatwaves in the past, with no serious increase in fatalities in years with hot summers, such as 1976, temperatures on the scale of those experienced in France in 2003, which resulted in 14,000 premature deaths, would have an impact.
In south-east England, the chance of a severe heatwave on this scale by 2012 is said to be one in 40, and the report says: "In conventional thinking about risks to health, a risk of one in 40 is high."
The NHS has warned that hospitals, nursing homes and other social care institutions need to brace themselves for coping with disasters by planning in advance.
However, fewer old people are expected to die each year from cold, as climate change leads to warmer winters.
Err, how many die from cold? As Lomborg has pointed out, deaths from cold snaps are very much higher than any of these predictions for deaths from heatwaves. We\’re getting another one of our cost reports, when we should be getting a cost benefit report. And malaria? That\’s really not a lot to do with temperature. It\’s to do with things like draining marshes and the like. Where I am in Southern Portugal is already a great deal warmer than anything that is predicted for the UK in coming centuries. Do we have malaria here? No….well then.
Absolutely, if the Romans were able to deal with Malaria (indeed, it is from them that the name “bad air” comes) then I think contemporary Western civilisation can handle this one.
As a slight aside, aren’t we supposed to have leaders and government that remain calm in the face of crisis? Why is it that this government is always in a flap about something? Hardly providing that steady hand that is necessary to keep the public confident.
In the Middle Ages (during the Warm Period that the IPCC don’t think happened) malaria was endemic in the UK in the marshy areas of Kent, Suffolk and Norfolk. It was, as you say, eradicated by better drainage and water management.
“Why is it that this government is always in a flap about something? Hardly providing that steady hand that is necessary to keep the public confident.”
The Government willing creates the flap. To raise a cry of Something Must Be Done and then show that Something Is Being Done.
And I promise you all now, if I hear the word “vulnerable” many more times I shall scream.
Tim adds: Just a morning thought. “On the internet, no one can hear you scream”.
Meanwhile, in the real world, there is talk of virtually eliminating malaria from Africa, at a cost of just $10 Billion.
Had it not been for Rachel Fucking Carson and her moronic ‘Silent Spring’, malaria would probably be virtually eliminated anyway. (Some details here.)
@ Ian – where does that place R F Carson on the scale of death-dealers? Has she overtaken Hitler? Can she reach Mao?
Malaria is not exclusively a warm weather disease. It was endemic is marshy parts of England throughout the 18th century when England was enjoying the Little Ice Age. Even Siberia had malaria outbreaks during the 20th Century.
contaminated drinking water
Apart from the fluoride they plan to add? Sorry, off topic.
France in 2003, which resulted in 14,000 premature deaths
How many of these deaths were caused by the poor response of emergency staff, given that it was August and most were on holiday?
“Had it not been for Rachel Fucking Carson and her moronic ‘Silent Spring…”
Absolute, nonsensical, urban mythological rubbish. Start here and continue here.
In short, DDT has never been banned for malaria eradication. The fact that it was banned for /other/ pesticide purposes following Silent Spring delayed the onset of DDT-resistance in mosquitos, which has /saved/ lives. And in those places where DDT is no longer used for malaria eradication, this is because the mosquitos have finally become DDT-resistant, not because human lives are being sacrificed to bald eagles.
This isn’t a case like anthrogenic climate change, where it’s possible to hold the anti view in good faith. The *only* way you can take an anti-Carson position on DDT is if you are ignorant or lying.
Thanks for explaining under what circumstances I can hold certain opinions.
Ian Bennett, what admirable restraint under severe provocation!
The usual behaviour from john b.
If you disagree with him you must be ignorant or lying.
Perhaps he’d like to explain again to us ‘idiots’ why “four times less” means a quarter as much and then we’ll see who the idiot is.
But this isn’t a matter of disagreement – that’s the whole fucking point.
If you say that DDT is banned for malaria eradication for environmental reasons, you are making a claim which is transparently false and which can be shown as such with 5 minutes’s research, or 10 seconds asking someone who works in the malaria field.
It’s the equivalent of claiming that the earth is flat, and then throwing a paddy when round-earthers accuse you of being ignorant or lying. “But…. but… it’s my every right to believe the earth is flat! How dare you call me an ignorant moron…?”
Only one person here throwing a paddy – john b.
By contrast, Ian Bennett showed great restraint.
If Ian Bennett was, indeed, incorrect, then perhaps it might have been sufficient to point out that his view was based on an urban myth (or common misconception, or whatever). Politely.
But no, use words like, “rubbish”, “lying” and”ignorant” and then wonder why people react to you in the way they do.