Me? Are you referring to me? Perhaps you hadn’t noticed that Fred’s already had this discussion ad nauseum in the past, including this one:
“DDT to be used in Africa: It’s about God damned time”
forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi … hlight=DDT
In fact, shouldn’t this be merged with that thread to cut down on the clutter?
As for trying to talk, mostly I’ve just seen Fred pasting large blocks of text that he’s googled for, interspersed with random references to Che and “the left.”
[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“fred smith”]
Yes, but then you are ignoring my points which have cited numerous experts on how and why DDT has played the major role in lowering malaria death counts. Reread the citations and let me know if you have any further points of contention or require further clarification.[/quote]
But I don’t necessarily disagree with them. DDT has played a major role in lowering malaria deaths. I don’t dispute that. I’m not ignoring your points at all.
I’m just saying that placing all the blame on environmentalists and the ban is not the only reason why malaria is still a problem. There are other important factors that are usually left out of the debate.
I can’t remember if it was one of the quoted points from wikipedia or not, (if not, click on the link, it’s near the bottom of the wiki article) but in India they can’t use DDT anymore. Not because of a ban, not because on environmentalists but because the malaria carrying mosquitoes have built up a resistance to DDT - in the killing sense and the repelling sense. It is now ineffective there.[/quote]
I take your points but no one in the environmentalist brigade that got DDT banned was interested in New and Improved use of DDT. They wanted and got a complete BAN on its use. Therefore, given that many of the sources I supplied outlined EXACTLY how and why this raised death tolls from malaria, I would remain convinced that it was the ban on DDT that was primarily if not mostly responsible for this increase and I, unlike someone else, have provided you with a very credible and footnoted case as to why I have come to that conclusion. I, however, consider you as per Habermasian Effective Communication a sincere respondent. That is why I am willing to pursue this conversation with you.
As to the resistance, see once again the quote provided on page 3:
[quote]Another favored ideology of environmental activists is that any use of insecticides is counterproductive, because it results in resistant mosquitoes.
In fact, there is little evidence that insecticides on house walls constitute a strong selective pressure for insecticide resistance. Likewise, there is little evidence that resistance, once developed, reduces the effectiveness of DDT residues in preventing indoor transmission of malaria.[/b]
[/quote]
I notice you posting inanities such as “give me the name and address of everyone in Africa killed by malaria,” and taking a lot of scrolling space to do so, while two people are having a discussion. That’s what I notice. I find it irritating and distracting.
Sorry, didn’t mean to take your scrolling space. I’ll excuse myself now so you can enjoy the discussion. 
[quote]pesticide_resistance.jpg
Preventing malaria by killing mosquitoes
Malaria can be prevented by killing the local mosquito population, and health workers have recurrently responded to malarial outbreaks by spraying insecticides such as DDT in affected areas. DDT, sprayed on a normal insect, is a lethal nerve-poison. When it is first sprayed on a local mosquito population, the population goes into abrupt decline. What happens then depends on whether DDT has been sprayed before.
DDT becomes ineffective quickly
DDT-resistant mosquitoes were first detected in India in 1959, and they have increased so rapidly that when a local spray program is begun now, most mosquitoes become resistant in a matter of months rather than years.
DDT becomes ineffective so quickly now because DDT-resistant mosquitoes exist at low frequency in the global mosquito population and, when a local population is sprayed, a strong force of selection in favor of the resistant mosquitoes is immediately created. It is only a matter of time before the resistant mosquitoes take over.
Figure: increase in frequency of pesticide resistance in mosquitos after spraying with DDT. A sample of mosquitos was captured at each time indicated and the number that were killed by a standard dose of DDT (4 % DDT for 1 hour) in the laboratory was measured. From Curtis et al. (1978).
[/quote]
[quote] Scientists have sequenced the genome of the most dangerous human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum and the genome of Anopheles gambiae, the mosquito that transports the deadly disease from person to person. Malaria kills more than two million people every year, most of them children in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Anophles gambiae mosquito is the primary malaria-causing vector in humans.
Courtesy CDC and Jim Gathany
With the draft sequence of the human genome, researchers now have access to three key genomes in the life cycle of malaria: the parasite, the carrier and the host. Details about the biology of the disease have begun to emerge—along with new ideas about how to curb the spread of malaria with drugs, vaccines and insecticides.
The genomes, researchers say, will not bring relief to those suffering from malaria now, nor do they guarantee the development of better drugs. While the genomes open new avenues of research, more money for research and the delivery of drugs to the people who need them remains an urgent priority.
“This is just the beginning,” says Malcolm Gardner, who led the sequencing of the parasite at The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. “Despite decades of research, we don’t know as much about the parasite as we once thought.”
Resistance is one of the big obstacles to controlling malaria. In Africa, the parasite’s resistance to the inexpensive and commonly used drug chloroquine is widespread. Meanwhile, the mosquito’s resistance to DDT and other insecticides has grown, making some insecticide-coated nets useless.[/quote]
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/10_02/parasite_mosquito.shtml
No one is disputing your comments regarding resistance. You have failed to take the points of the authors and researchers that I have cited, however.
It does not matter that these mosquitos have become resistant to DDT since the purpose is no longer to kill them but to REPEL them. Thus, indoor use where mosquitos are repelled is still preferable and negates any relevance of the resistance factor to a large extent. As the studies have also shown, indoor spraying is not responsible or conducive to the resistance that was cited. The end result is that the mosquitos are not attacking AT NIGHT INDOORS and this is having a huge impact on malaria levels since it is precisely at night that they feed. Do you get this now?
Sandman, I agree MT’s a little distracting but this thread is not about a serous discussion about the efficacy of DDT because there is simply no one here with the biological training to argue with credibility. This is just link and cut and paste arguing. Which is fine if the discussion were “Is DDT effective and should we allow it to be used again?” but it’s not and you know it. This is abotu Fred out to show that the left is not only wrong, but immoral as well. All this later pretence to address cfimages posts is just arguing in bad faith since Fred is not open to have his opinion changed. This is an agenda driven thread and deserves to be mocked.
“Millions Died Because Environmental Activtists Were WRONG”
Yeah, real fodder for an adult discussion. 
that is a nice word for it…
How else to supply needed information online? It has to be by a source that can be cut and pasted via the Internet. NO ONE would accept my view on this by saying: I was talking to an expert friend of mine…
Same with nearly all similar discussions and I challenge the assertion that we need to be experts to be able to cite information that buttresses our views precisely when it is made by experts. Again, what? Not citing the Butler and Duelfer reports because we are not wmd experts? nuclear engineers?
???
Ah but how did you KNOW that these environmentalists were leftists? Did it state that anywhere? No. You naturally assumed that they were leftists… Why? because you agree that they are as stupid as I do?
Interesting and thus all the information that I have cited is irrelevant and pointless? Despite being by experts on the subject?
CFImages and I have attained a very interesting and factual debate about the use of DDT. I do not see anywhere in our discussions where we are lashing out at each other from a left-right polarity. That has occurred only when Mother Theresa has posted his irrelevant comments. No?
[quote]“Millions Died Because Environmental Activtists Were WRONG”
Yeah, real fodder for an adult discussion. [/quote]
Is it factually wrong? And how and why does this differ from other headings in the IP forum or do you simply allow those most of the time because you agree with them?
[quote=“Muzha Man”]there is simply no one here with the biological training to argue with credibility. This is just link and cut and paste arguing.
…
This is an agenda driven thread and deserves to be mocked.
[/quote]
Actually, i am very qualified to debate this issue from my position as a neuroscientist with 15 years experience in insect poisons and insecticides, among other research interests such as snake, spider and scorpion venom toxins and ion channel evolution.
I am choosing not to contribute as there is no one else able to discuss it at that level. and it is an agena driven thread, as you point out.
I did post earlier that DDT was not as bad as it has been demonised. but the number of simplistic comments andweak second-hand arguments since then reinforce my belief that its a wasted effort to talk further.
besides, i have more impotant things to do, such as check on my fruit flies.
MILLIONS DIED BECAUSE F. SMITH BORED THEM TO DEATH WITH AD NAUSEUM ARGUMENTS
I always thought that resistance to DDT in mosquitoes meant that they were also resistant to the repellent effects as well. So regardless of whether the point is to kill or repel, they are still resistant. Or am I wrong? Urodacus, maybe you can answer that one.
As MM said, I’m not a biologist. 
I guess I should go back to the global warming threads.
Two threads on this topic? What a waste, if you consider that the Republicans couldn’t give a rat’s ass about African lives if this wasn’t a convenient opportunity to try to take potshots at anyone who ever expressed any concern about DDT or its use.
I have provided links disputing the resistance “myth.” Please reread.
Resistance of mosquitoes to DDT occurs when the actual protein that is targeted by DDT changes its structure slightly (one amino acid is replaced by another as a result of small numbers of random mutation in the gene that codes for that protein, one of which is a useful change for the insect, resulting in a less efficient protein but one that is no longer affected by DDT). Hence no nerve over-firing and no convulsions, etc. Carriers of that form of the gene will now have more offspring than their compatriots, and thus the new version of the gene quickly becomes fixed in the population. Without spraying with DDT, those variant genes would not be selected for. The spraying exerts a massive selection pressure, sufficient to get complete replacement of that gene in the population in only a few generations: rapid evolution due to natural selection in the face of a large selection pressure. The other variants of the gene that are caused by random mutaton are either selected against (if they affect the protein too much that it does not work), are not selected against and are a neutral change (if they occur in unimportant parts of the protein) and thus slowly accumulate over time but have no outward effect (these polymorphisms occur in all genes and are a part of our natural variation: we all have them), or are selected for in the presence of a selection pressure… natural selecction is but one mechanism of the evolution of species, but not the only one (there are about 7 or 8 described mechanisms, including gene fixing, gene drift, gene flow from other species, etc).
The repellant effects of DDT are quite distinct from its neurotoxic effects, and rely on the smell of the chemical to drive insects away from the sprayed area, much the same as repellant plants like Citronella, Cedronella and some varieties of Pelargonium work. (Sorry for no italics where they should be). It is conceivable that the repellant effects could see resistance as well, but the rate of resistance development would be much smaller as the selection pressure is much lower (ie you don’t die if you smell it, so you can still have babies).
Ok, based on the above post by urodacus, it appears I was wrong. Sorry bout that.
[quote=“urodacus”][quote=“Muzha Man”]there is simply no one here with the biological training to argue with credibility. This is just link and cut and paste arguing.
…
This is an agenda driven thread and deserves to be mocked.
[/quote]
Actually, I am very qualified to debate this issue from my position as a neuroscientist with 15 years experience in insect poisons and insecticides, among other research interests such as snake, spider and scorpion venom toxins and ion channel evolution.
I am choosing not to contribute as there is no one else able to discuss it at that level. and it is an agena driven thread, as you point out.
I did post earlier that DDT was not as bad as it has been demonised. but the number of simplistic comments andweak second-hand arguments since then reinforce my belief that its a wasted effort to talk further.
besides, I have more impotant things to do, such as check on my fruit flies.[/quote]
Reminds me of a time I asked my boss at a barbecue whether the chicken was done (it was a bit pink) and he and his wife got into a huge argument over chicken diseases and the use of anti-biotics and the transmissability to humans of the same. They were both microbiologists who met doing post-doctorate research at a university in New Zealand. Oops! 