Wow! Talk about taking advantage of people's misery. Before you "save" these folks by spraying DDT, will you tell them about the damage it does to the nervous and reproductive systems? What about the link to liver cancer (you know, the kind that kills you in weeks)? Or the fact that they'll be dealing with these problems long after the initial application because DDT is bioaccumulative? Will you mention that Mexico has dealt very effectively with malaria without using a drop of this poison?

Responsible use of DDT for malarial cohntrol produces tremendous net benefits for public health in impoverished countries. About this, there is little dispute. This is why environmental NGOs dropped their call for the immediate and complete phase-out of DDT under the POPs treaty, why the New York Times editorialized in favor of DDT use (12/23/2002) and, apparently, why even Greenpeace is willing to accept limited DDT use.

For more on DDT and malaria control, I highly recommend the material on the website of Africa Fighting Malaria (http://www.fightingmalaria.org). As for the alleged human health threats of limited DDT use, most of the relevant claims are discussed in this paper:
http://www.fightingmalaria.org/pdfs/hpd_DDT_uganda.pdf

I've posted a rather lengthy response at Sustainablog. In short, I see some of the merits of your position, though I'm encouraged by the successes of non-toxic alternatives to DDT in malaria control. There's more room for discussion than I realized...