It's Time to Spray DDT

[charrison]

linkage

f the U.S. wants to help people in tsunami-hit countries like Sri Lanka and Indonesia - not to mention other poor countries in Africa - there's one step that would cost us nothing and would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

It would be to allow DDT in malaria-ravaged countries.

I'm thrilled that we're pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the relief effort, but the tsunami was only a blip in third-world mortality. Mosquitoes kill 20 times more people each year than the tsunami did, and in the long war between humans and mosquitoes it looks as if mosquitoes are winning.

One reason is that the U.S. and other rich countries are siding with the mosquitoes against the world's poor - by opposing the use of DDT.

"It's a colossal tragedy," says Donald Roberts, a professor of tropical public health at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. "And it's embroiled in environmental politics and incompetent bureaucracies."

In the 1950's, 60's and early 70's, DDT was used to reduce malaria around the world, even eliminating it in places like Taiwan. But then the growing recognition of the harm DDT can cause in the environment - threatening the extinction of the bald eagle, for example - led DDT to be banned in the West and stigmatized worldwide. Ever since, malaria has been on the rise.


...

But overall, one of the best ways to protect people is to spray the inside of a hut, about once a year, with DDT. This uses tiny amounts of DDT - 450,000 people can be protected with the same amount that was applied in the 1960's to a single 1,000-acre American cotton farm.

Is it safe? DDT was sprayed in America in the 1950's as children played in the spray, and up to 80,000 tons a year were sprayed on American crops. There is some research suggesting that it could lead to premature births, but humans are far better off exposed to DDT than exposed to malaria.

...

But it's also tragic that our squeamishness about DDT is killing more people in poor countries, year in and year out, than even a once-in-a-century tsunami.

Suprised this was published in the NYT.

 

[phonemonkey]

Aren't there shots or medications that can be distributed to help stem the tide of Malaria? I mean, if there's no other way to try to stop the disease from spreading (and it's been tested and found to be clinically and environmentally safe), then I'd support using chemicals to kill the mosquitos.

Does anyone know if there have been any attempts to try to drain the areas where the mosquitos breed (this was one of the methods used to stem the tide of yellow fever when building the Panama Canal)?

 

[beer]

You're talking about draining entire swamps in regions of the world where the cackle of old russian rifles in the background is a common thing, and such basic infrastructure like roads and reliability electricity are lacking?

 

[phonemonkey]

I'm talking about first off removing objects which hold water yet don't drain easily (ie: tires and such). I'm not saying that it's an easy task, but maybe it should be considered as a possible solution at least in some areas. I think that the Army Corps of Engineers would be able to lend some experise in this area, given their past with being able to change the landscape (the Everglades and the Louisiana delta, for example).

Still, if you have a better idea, please let us know.

 

[BOLt]

My grandmother, may her soul rest in peace, died of malaria some years back. The ONLY reason she died was that there was no medicine for her to take to treat or cure her. I think the drug most often used to stop malaria is quinine, though I may be mistaking it for the drug used to cure yellow fever or something, but the local hospital did not have a supply of whatever drug is necessary to cure her simply because it was too expensive. My grandmother lived in India along with my grandfather and she died in my grandfather's arms because the drug that could have been used to help her was too expensive for the hospital to stock. What kind of rubbish is that? That's the worst reason for someone to die -- simple because one's country or city or town or whatever does not have enough money. It makes me so angry, and she was the last person on earth to deserve that. She was the modern day Mother Teresa by all accounts.

I hope someday, that these things won't have to happen.

 

[ntdz]

DDT is a perfect example of environmentalists going way too far.

 

[Mill]

Blame Rachel Carson's Silent Spring for DDT being gone.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ntdz
DDT is a perfect example of environmentalists going way too far.

No it's not.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ntdz
DDT is a perfect example of environmentalists going way too far.

No it's not.

As the token Liberal here, I'm sure Silent Spring sits on your dresser like a Bible. Do you read a passage from it each night? :disgust:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ntdz
DDT is a perfect example of environmentalists going way too far.

No it's not.

As the token Liberal here, I'm sure Silent Spring sits on your dresser like a Bible. Do you read a passage from it each night? :disgust:

Never read it, haven't even heard of it. Doesn't matter, DDT is too destructive to use period.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ntdz
DDT is a perfect example of environmentalists going way too far.

No it's not.

As the token Liberal here, I'm sure Silent Spring sits on your dresser like a Bible. Do you read a passage from it each night? :disgust:

Never read it, haven't even heard of it. Doesn't matter, DDT is too destructive to use period.

Can you back that up? I know it can be dangerous, but saying "[ it ] is too destructive to use period" seems rather myopic, if not predicated on a simplistic viewpoint. Elaborate?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: BOLt
she died in my grandfather's arms because the drug that could have been used to help her was too expensive for the hospital to stock. What kind of rubbish is that? That's the worst reason for someone to die -- simple because one's country or city or town or whatever does not have enough money. It makes me so angry

that kind of thing is happening with HIV. Western people get access to HIV meds (which are now are very effective, turning HIV from a death sentence to a manageable illness) but the 40 million ++ people in Africa with HIV can't afford these meds, and are dying like flies. The manufacturers won't sell the drugs in Africa at reduced cost. A years meds might cost cents to make, but are sold for $1000s of dollars, presumably to recoup research costs and make the manufacturer a huge profit also.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Never read it, haven't even heard of it. Doesn't matter, DDT is too destructive to use period.

This is what I've read and heard. It has a very long half-life, and accumulates in the food chain. The onus would be on proponents to demonstrate this substance's safety.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: sandorski
Never read it, haven't even heard of it. Doesn't matter, DDT is too destructive to use period.

This is what I've read and heard. It has a very long half-life, and accumulates in the food chain. The onus would be on proponents to demonstrate this substance's safety.

It doesn't quite work like that. He made the claim that it was too hazardous to use, thus the onus is on him.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ntdz
DDT is a perfect example of environmentalists going way too far.

No it's not.

As the token Liberal here, I'm sure Silent Spring sits on your dresser like a Bible. Do you read a passage from it each night? :disgust:

Never read it, haven't even heard of it. Doesn't matter, DDT is too destructive to use period.

Can you back that up? I know it can be dangerous, but saying "[ it ] is too destructive to use period" seems rather myopic, if not predicated on a simplistic viewpoint. Elaborate?

Myopic? Using it because it kills mosquitos isn't? The damage to other animals, especially eagles, is well documented. It's like surgically killing a terrorist in a city center with a nuke. DDT was banned for good reason.

 

[Geardo]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ntdz
DDT is a perfect example of environmentalists going way too far.

No it's not.

Yes it is!

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: sandorski
Never read it, haven't even heard of it. Doesn't matter, DDT is too destructive to use period.

This is what I've read and heard. It has a very long half-life, and accumulates in the food chain. The onus would be on proponents to demonstrate this substance's safety.

It doesn't quite work like that. He made the claim that it was too hazardous to use, thus the onus is on him.

Yes, it does work like that. If you want to market a product, then YOU prove that it is safe at recommended concentrations.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: ntdz
DDT is a perfect example of environmentalists going way too far.

According to this article use of DDT against malaria in third world countries was halted because it did not work (insects developed resistance to it, there were some other problems) not because of environmentalists "going too far":

"The eradication program ended not because of any environmental concerns, but because it did not work. The mosquitoes had grown resistant to insecticides, and the microorganisms that cause malaria had become resistant to the drugs used against them. In many areas the numbers of cases of malaria greatly exceeded what it was before the effort was started. If events had been different, if DDT had not been used heavily in agriculture and there was no shortage of funds the outcome might have been different. Malaria might have joined smallpox as a disease that had been eliminated from the face of the earth. Unfortunately, such was not the case. As early as 1967 it was clear that the effort had failed, and in 1972 the official policy shifted from eradication to control of malaria."

 

[Geardo]

But probably the most remarkable demonstration of the health-preserving powers of pesticides was the use of DDT to kill maria-carrying mosquitoes. Thanks to DDT, countries such as Zanzibar (an island off the east coast of Africa) reduced the percentage of their populations infected with malaria from 70 percent in 1958 to under 5 percent in 1964. Then, the DDT spraying program was suspended, and by 1984 the malaria rate was back up to 50 to 60 percent

From you're link!

http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Geardo

But probably the most remarkable demonstration of the health-preserving powers of pesticides was the use of DDT to kill maria-carrying mosquitoes. Thanks to DDT, countries such as Zanzibar (an island off the east coast of Africa) reduced the percentage of their populations infected with malaria from 70 percent in 1958 to under 5 percent in 1964. Then, the DDT spraying program was suspended, and by 1984 the malaria rate was back up to 50 to 60 percent

From you're link!

http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm

Did you read the entire article?!?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Misquitos are the most deadly animal on the planet

Even OJ is not as deadly.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ntdz
DDT is a perfect example of environmentalists going way too far.

No it's not.

As the token Liberal here, I'm sure Silent Spring sits on your dresser like a Bible. Do you read a passage from it each night? :disgust:

Never read it, haven't even heard of it. Doesn't matter, DDT is too destructive to use period.

Can you back that up? I know it can be dangerous, but saying "[ it ] is too destructive to use period" seems rather myopic, if not predicated on a simplistic viewpoint. Elaborate?

Myopic? Using it because it kills mosquitos isn't? The damage to other animals, especially eagles, is well documented. It's like surgically killing a terrorist in a city center with a nuke. DDT was banned for good reason.

You did not read how this stuff would actually be used to control misquotos did you?.

But your ok with millions meeting their fate with malaria every year. Typical kind hearted caring liberal.

 

[CaptnKirk]

The problem with the DDT approach is that the area has now - and has always had in the past,
lots and lots of open water areas. Spraying Umpteen Jillion tons of DDT onto the area won't
even make a dent in the mosquito population - but would affect all the other wildlife species for
years to come, some of which will turn out fine if left alone, but irreversably harmed if someone
were to try to use DDT as an abatment program.
DDT just don't go away without bad effects, especially to the birds.

The BEST use would be of an 'Oil Fog' or 'Oil Spray' - that would settle on the surface of the
puddles, lakes, and ponds - a barrier that the misquito larvae cannot penetrate with their
breathing proboscious' - which will kill off the next generation or two of misquitos.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The problem with the DDT approach is that the area has now - and has always had in the past,
lots and lots of open water areas. Spraying Umpteen Jillion tons of DDT onto the area won't
even make a dent in the mosquito population - but would affect all the other wildlife species for
years to come, some of which will turn out fine if left alone, but irreversably harmed if someone
were to try to use DDT as an abatment program.
DDT just don't go away without bad effects, especially to the birds.

The BEST use would be of an 'Oil Fog' or 'Oil Spray' - that would settle on the surface of the
puddles, lakes, and ponds - a barrier that the misquito larvae cannot penetrate with their
breathing proboscious' - which will kill off the next generation or two of misquitos.

As the article describes, they would use it from spraying entryways of housing to keep misquotos out of the peoples houses. This would only require a small amount to be done annually. It appears most people are incable of RTFA.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Ever been around in that part of the world ?
The misquitos don't use doorways and normal entryways when they get inside dwellings.

Some of the general population housing there - what few that are left, don't even have screens.
Sounds good for the Exclusive resort areas dosen't it - about 1 % of the dwellings.

You are more likely to encounter the bugs outside in the open environment - they can bite
right through T-Shirts and other light clothing. Walking through grass is almost a guarantee
that you will get bit by mosquitos.

Kristof
He's a goddamn Op/Ed Writer for Christsake - covering mostly China, et. al.
Not an expert on the impact of chemicals on the environment, especially DDT.