It's Time to Spray DDT

[Mill]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm not marketing ANYTHING. He's making a claim, and I'm asking him to back it up with proof. Sheesh.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm not marketing ANYTHING. He's making a claim, and I'm asking him to back it up with proof. Sheesh.

I think it has already been established that DDT isn't safe because it was banned.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 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.

once again, RTFA

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.

 

[charrison]

linkage

A few more op-eds on this subject.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm not marketing ANYTHING. He's making a claim, and I'm asking him to back it up with proof. Sheesh.

I think it has already been established that DDT isn't safe because it was banned.

Not in the manner of usage that this article implies. If you read the article you'd understand my point.

 

[SuperTool]

Is there anything stopping those countries from using DDT?

 

[ReiAyanami]

But is that supposed concentration of DDT safe for, oh let's say a baby? Because remember, a safe concentration for a 180 lb man is literally 12,000% to a 1.5 lb baby

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is there anything stopping those countries from using DDT?

I beleive there is some sort of international ban on it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
But is that supposed concentration of DDT safe for, oh let's say a baby? Because remember, a safe concentration for a 180 lb man is literally 12,000% to a 1.5 lb baby

So what concentration of maleria is safe for a baby? It appears DDT remains far safer than maleria.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
But is that supposed concentration of DDT safe for, oh let's say a baby? Because remember, a safe concentration for a 180 lb man is literally 12,000% to a 1.5 lb baby

1.5lb baby? LMAO. They are keeping extreme premature babies in huts now? :roll:

 

[Byers]

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?

Funny considering the whole stream of posts are predicated on "simplistic viewpoint".

Silent Spring wasn't an opinion piece that's up for debate and open to interpretation. It documents how DDT adversely effects life in the food chain, not simply insects like most pesticides. It's a health hazard and was eventually banned as such. Silent Spring's claims were backed up by numerous scientists. It was JFK's Science Advisory Committee that took up an investigation into Silent Spring's claims. Their subsequent report validated those claims which eventually lead to the ban of widespread use of DDT.

 

[ntdz]

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. DDT doesn't harm anything except Bald Eagles, that's why it was banned. It has absolutely NO HARM to humans. DDT was replaced by a substance that was far worst.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is there anything stopping those countries from using DDT?

I beleive there is some sort of international ban on it.

Do you have info? It said that some countries were spraying in that article.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ntdz

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. DDT doesn't harm anything except Bald Eagles, that's why it was banned. It has absolutely NO HARM to humans. DDT was replaced by a substance that was far worst.

Only Eagles huh? ROFL.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

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

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Byers

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?

Funny considering the whole stream of posts are predicated on "simplistic viewpoint".

Silent Spring wasn't an opinion piece that's up for debate and open to interpretation. It documents how DDT adversely effects life in the food chain, not simply insects like most pesticides. It's a health hazard and was eventually banned as such. Silent Spring's claims were backed up by numerous scientists. It was JFK's Science Advisory Committee that took up an investigation into Silent Spring's claims. Their subsequent report validated those claims which eventually lead to the ban of widespread use of DDT.

Did you read the posted article? They are using traditional spraying methods, therefore Carson's observations are not applicable in the same manner, if applicable at all. For the record, Silent Spring was debated heavily and DDT was banned because something "new" was around, and not necessarily because of its risks, and the fact that drainage projects and education were working great as well. Spraying minute amounts onto a thatch roof is not going to pollute and destroy the food chain.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is there anything stopping those countries from using DDT?

I beleive there is some sort of international ban on it.

you believe?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: charrison
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.

What's the evidence that DDT inside the home prevents malaria infection in a given population? People will still be targeted by mosquitoes outside the home, surely.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is there anything stopping those countries from using DDT?

I beleive there is some sort of international ban on it.

Do you have info? It said that some countries were spraying in that article.

I think we all know how well international bans work

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: charrison
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.

What's the evidence that DDT inside the home prevents malaria infection in a given population? People will still be targeted by mosquitoes outside the home, surely.

DDT pretty much keeps the mosuitos away where it is sprayed. Outside the home, people will still need to wear mosquite repellant.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is there anything stopping those countries from using DDT?

I beleive there is some sort of international ban on it.

you believe?

linkage

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm not marketing ANYTHING. He's making a claim, and I'm asking him to back it up with proof. Sheesh.

I think it has already been established that DDT isn't safe because it was banned.

Not in the manner of usage that this article implies. If you read the article you'd understand my point.

The default assumption is that it is toxic to animal health including human health. The onus is on the promoters of this substance to demonstrate otherwise. Are you able to point to studies indicating no adverse consequences to humans (including pregnant mothers) when used in the manner described in the article?

Essentially the article is advocating using this substance as a cheap personal insect repellant/ insecticide. It's to be used in the same way WE (first-world people) use fly-sprays like Raid, etc. around the house. They are not suggesting use of DDT for wholesale destruction of the mosquito in its breeding grounds. I have two questions:
1) won't people still be targeted by mosquitoes outside the home?
and
2) surely safer, more effective personal insecticides than DDT have been developed in the past 40 years?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is there anything stopping those countries from using DDT?

I beleive there is some sort of international ban on it.

Do you have info? It said that some countries were spraying in that article.

I think we all know how well international bans work

Is there an international ban? What's the agency that would oversea and enforce such a ban? My understanding is that while it was banned from use in the USA by the EPA in the early 1970s, it continued to be used in third world nations affected by malaria up until as recently as 1994.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm not marketing ANYTHING. He's making a claim, and I'm asking him to back it up with proof. Sheesh.

I think it has already been established that DDT isn't safe because it was banned.

Not in the manner of usage that this article implies. If you read the article you'd understand my point.

The default assumption is that it is toxic to animal health including human health. The onus is on the promoters of this substance to demonstrate otherwise. Are you able to point to studies indicating no adverse consequences to humans (including pregnant mothers) when used in the manner described in the article?

Essentially the article is advocating using this substance as a cheap personal insect repellant/ insecticide. It's to be used the way WE first-world people use Mortein, Raid, etc. around the house. They are not suggesting use of DDT for wholesale destruction of the mosquito in its breeding grounds. I have two questions:
1) won't people still be targeted by mosquitoes outside the home?
and
2) surely safer, more effective personal insecticides than DDT have been developed in the past 40 years?

1. People will still need to wear mosquite repellant outside the home. But I guess you would like living inside netting and be covered in DEET 24/7 inside your own dwelling.

2. DDT is quite inexpensive and for poor countries, this is a big plug.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is there anything stopping those countries from using DDT?

I beleive there is some sort of international ban on it.

Do you have info? It said that some countries were spraying in that article.

I think we all know how well international bans work

Is there an international ban? What's the agency that would oversea and enforce such a ban? My understanding is that while it was banned from use in the USA by the EPA in the early 1970s, it continued to be used in third world nations affected by malaria up until as recently as 1994.

More details in the link posted above..