As to your concerns regarding resistance in mosquitoes, read on…
Anyway, I think that the left has been shockingly culpable. We can lay the deaths of millions to their misguided “environmental concerns.” DDT is not the problem that they portrayed it to be. Also, it is truly amazing isn’t it how all discussion of the ozone layer and the hole in that layer has died down. To my understanding the problem is just as serious as it was 20 years ago so why the lack of discussion and why is everything today about global warming, whoops, er climate change…? This DDT example is one of the many reasons why I take environmentalists and their concerns with such a MAJOR grain of salt.
[quote]Some mosquitoes became “resistant” to DDT. “There is persuasive evidence that antimalarial operations did not produce mosquito resistance to DDT. That crime, and in a very real sense it was a crime, can be laid to the intemperate and inappropriate use of DDT by farmers, espeially cotton growers. They used the insecticide at levels that would accelerate, if not actually induce, the selection of a resistant population of mosquitoes.”
[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
“Resistance” may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/physiological mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas where DDT has been applied – this still reduces mosquito-human contact. “This avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raise serious questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of malaria.”
[See, e.g., J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1998 Dec;14(4):410-20; and Am J Trop Med Hyg 1994;50(6 Suppl):21-34][/quote]
Even better the second time! You’re brilliant Fred.
It’s far too often that the general public, and The Left in particular, complacently falls for the insidious myths about environmentalists supposedly trying to protect the environment, when in truth they’re, for the most part, nothing more than a front for communist and terrorist organizations, and a threat to our way of life.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Fred: I may have to cross the street and live on the other side, where there are no dangerously loony ideas. None. Even ID and creationism look great from that side, and everything coming out of Liberty University is just the most sensible take I have ever listened to. No, had the PRIVILEGE of being granted the ears by God to listen to.
On another tack, yet somehow curiously related, Yay! Gerry Falwell’s heart stopped today. No more stupid ignorant diatribes from HIM anymore.
Adam and Steve, you can come out of the closet now. What’s that you say? You just came IN the closet? That’s disgusting, boys… and don’t wipe it on my nice clean suspenders, now, d’you hear?
Environmentalists made many claims that DDT was very unhealthy.
DDT was thus banned in the developed world.
Aid projects stipulated that DDT could not be used.
European nations banned trade with those nations using DDT (agricultural products the main export).
Deaths from malaria rose perhaps to as high as 100 million preventables.
DDT is now “unbanned” and has been credited for reducing death tolls.
So what do we get? Boilerplate from Mother Theresa and others. Seems a strange kind of response for a very well documented series of posts. What gives one wonders… Yes, this is one of the reasons why I have such contempt for the left but at least I can document it, right? haha
No, we’re just having a go at your implication that all the looney environmental ideas are from the left. Perhaps some are, and some are from the right, and some have no political affiliation whatsoever.
Fine. I will concede that the political affiliations of the environmentalists are not known. I appreciate the fact that you now acknowledge that the environmentalists (as stated in my title without political affiliation) were to blame for the banning of DDT for reasons that did not stand up to scrutiny. I will posit that it is entirely possible though that given what we know of most such “activists” that more than fewer were probably of the leftist persuasion? haha
I have to congratulate you on this thread. It is far more civil than the usual “Zyklon B to be used in Africa: it’s about God damned time” stuff that the white-sheet Republicans spout.
Now that the Republicans are pretending to give a crap about malaria in Africa, perhaps they can pretend to give a crap about AIDS as well. Or are they going to keep insisting that no money go to any programs that involving either sex education (beyond abstinence education) or provision of condoms?
Is it still part of the enlightened right-wing science brigade’s view that AIDS comes from Africans having sex with monkeys?
As they don’t believe in evolution, it would be good to know if there are any GOPpers who know how any diseases actually work.
[quote]Now that the Republicans are pretending to give a crap about malaria in Africa, perhaps they can pretend to give a crap about AIDS as well. Or are they going to keep insisting that no money go to any programs that involving either sex education (beyond abstinence education) or provision of condoms?
Is it still part of the enlightened right-wing science brigade’s view that AIDS comes from Africans having sex with monkeys?
As they don’t believe in evolution, it would be good to know if there are any GOPpers who know how any diseases actually work.[/quote]
And how would Bush’s $15 billion compare with past efforts? Wanna do a comparison of monies spent during the Clinton and Bush I administrations. How about looking at what other nations provide? I have given you a figure $15 billion which I believe is very high. Show me how it is not.
DDT is a persistent organic pollutant with a reported half life of between 2-15 years, and is immobile in most soils.
DDT’s effectiveness.
Suitability in climates. DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was not pursued at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties.
Resistance. Though the WHO’s program was initially highly successful worldwide (reducing mortality rates from 192 per 100,000 to a low of 7 per 100,000),resistance emerged in many insect populations over time. The claim that DDT is the most viable solution is countered by the fact that insects were becoming tolerant of DDT at the time that it was banned.
Adverse effects
Doubts about DDT’s environmental effects grew out of direct personal observations, usually involving a marked reduction in bird life, later supplemented by scientific investigation.
DDT is highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure to high concentrations.
Eggshell thinness remains 10–12 percent thinner than pre-DDT thicknesses.
How the West was won
DDT contributed to the final eradication of malaria in Europe and North America, although malaria had already been eliminated from much of the developed world in the early 20th century through the use of a range of public health measures and generally increasing health and living standards.
Malaria’s decline in the United States and Europe in the late 1800s was due mainly to draining swamps and removing mill ponds".
DDT was replaced in most antimalarial uses by less persistent, and more expensive, alternative insecticides.
Alternatives
Vietnam is an example of a country that has seen a continued decline in malaria cases after switching in 1991 from DDT-based campaign to program based on prompt treatment, bednets, and the use other insecticides. In Mexico, however, the use of a range of effective and affordable chemical and non-chemical strategies against malaria has been so successful that the Mexican DDT manufacturing plant ceased production voluntarily, due to lack of demand.
Traditional MethodsBefore DDT, malaria was successfully eradicated or controlled in several tropical areas by removing or poisoning the breeding grounds of the mosquitoes or the aquatic habitats of the larva stages, for example by filling or applying oil to places with standing water. These methods have seen little application in Africa for more than half a century
Costs
It is alleged that DDT is the most cost-effective method of targeting malaria. However, a study in Thailand found the cost per malaria case prevented of DDT spraying ($1.87 US) to be 21% greater than the cost per case prevented of lambdacyhalothrin-treated nets ($1.54 US),[80] at very least casting some doubt on the unexamined assumption that DDT was the most cost-effective measure to use in all cases. This doesn’t even take into account negative long-term health effects to animals and humans.
Comment:DDT is not the magic bullet as claimed. Resistance, adverse health effects, bioaccumulation are just some of the reasons. As shown, other methods have shown to been effective. President’s Bush’s injeciton of funds is a welcome gesture, but Snake Eyes does not agree that DDT is the final solution.
Bit late to the game snake. Check out both threads. The issues of resistance, toxicity and egg shelling thinning have been addressed. DDT works. It need not be sprayed across massive areas as before but for indoor spraying, it is the BEST solution and the fears of toxicity (carcinogenic) were misplaced as were the thinning egg shells (disproved). Regardless, this would not matter if used indoors where REPELLING mosquitos was the biggest contribution. Check out the other thread as well and if you have any more comments beyond that, then I will address them.
Though widespread use of DDT didn’t begin until WWII, there were resistant houseflies in Europe by 1947, and by 1949, DDT-resistant mosquitoes were documented on two continents. By 1972, when the U.S. DDT ban went into effect, 19 species of mosquitoes capable of transmitting malaria, including some in Africa, were resistant to DDT.
Insects have a phenomenal capacity to adapt to new poisons; anything that kills a large proportion of a population ends up changing the insects’ genetic composition so as to favor those few individuals that manage to survive due to random mutation. In the continued presence of the insecticide, susceptible populations can be rapidly replaced by resistant ones.
Snake Eyes does not agree that resistance and adverse health issues are refuted as claimed by others. Is it black and white? perhaps not.
Here is what Snake Eyes believes to be a balanced essay written by an expert (of which Snake Eyes believes there are none in this forum), an Entomologist and head of the Entomology Dept. at the University of Illinois.
The author recognizes that there are other methods, other tools to be used in conjunction, and that DDT should not be thought of as a magic bullet to the exclusion of all other tools.
The truth is that DDT is neither superhero nor supervillain – it’s just a tool. And if entomologists have learned anything in the last half-century of dealing with the million-plus species of insects in the world, it’s that there is no such thing as an all-purpose weapon when it comes to pest management. DDT may be useful in controlling malaria in some places in Africa, but it’s essential to determine whether target populations are resistant; if they are, then no amount of DDT will be effective.
[quote]To spray or not to spray: Many African nations believe DDT is their only hope against malaria, but the powerful pesticide is not a magic bullet, the author argues. Many mosquito species have become resistant to the poison.
We have new means of determining whether populations are genetically prone to developing resistance. DDT advocates are right to suggest that DDT may be useful as a precision instrument under some circumstances, particularly considering that environmental contamination in Africa may be less of a problem than it has been in temperate ecosystems because the chemical can degrade faster due to higher temperatures, moisture levels and microbial activity. Moreover, resistance evolves due to random mutation, so there are, by chance, malaria-carrying mosquito species in Africa that remain susceptible to DDT despite more than two decades of exposure to the chemical.
But environmentalists are right to worry that the unwise use of DDT, particularly where it is likely to be ineffective, may cause environmental harm without any benefit. In 2000, I chaired a National Research Council committee that published a study titled “The Future Role of Pesticides in U.S. Agriculture.” Our principal recommendation is germane to discussions of malaria management: “There is no justification for completely abandoning chemicals per se as components in the defensive toolbox used for managing pests. The committee recommends maintaining a diversity of tools for maximizing flexibility, precision, and stability of pest management.”[/quote]
Snake Eyes needs to stop referring to himself as Snake Eyes Fred Smith thinks…
Also, if you check out the other thread on millions killed by environmentalists, there is additional info on DDT resistance and why that is not important in its efficacy as a repellant. Sorry, just too tired to go back and resource all of this for your convenience. Fred Smith apologizes for any inconvenience.
Snake Eyes believes that an Entolomology Department head at a major U.S. academic institution has much more credibility than the links that have been posted. Snake Eyes agrees with the author that while, DDT may have its limited uses, we should not put all our eggs in one basket, so to speak.
Snake Eyes firmly disagrees with other posters on this subject, and will take decisive action to terminate the threat with extreme prejudice.
Your link is not anything new. No one is calling for spraying outdoors. DDT would be used INDOORS. Do you understand? Fred Smith thinks that Snake Eyes does not get this…
:s