Posted on 06/06/2005 11:49:19 AM PDT by cogitator
"Banned in the United States more than 30 years ago, it remains America's best known toxic substance. Like some sort of rap star, it's known just by its initials; it's the Notorious B.I.G. of pesticides.
Now DDT is making headlines again. Many African governments are calling for access to the pesticide, believing that it's their best hope against malaria, a disease that infects more than 300 million people worldwide a year and kills at least 3 million, a large proportion of them children." . . .
"What people aren't remembering about the history of DDT is that, in many places, it failed to eradicate malaria not because of environmentalist restrictions on its use but because it simply stopped working." . . .
"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."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Nature has a way of making a level playing field over time.
She documented NOTHING....that's the point. The book was a farce.
I did read the whole article. AS with many published works, it contains some good info - but also some misleading information as well. The idea of immunity/resistance to chemicals - particularly DDT is not a new problem and it applies to ALL pesticides that have been invented.
The REAL answer - hinted about in the article - is to include DDT in the "toolbox" used.
The article also doesn't make any effort to tell of the myths associated with DDT in relation to the supposed environmental damage. The supposed evidence against DDT was completely fabricated.
There are ZERO compelling reasons to ban the use of DDT in Africa, or even in the plains of the US.
The effective use of pesticides includes rotating the product used and PROPER application (concentration/method). The rules of effective use are the same worldwide.
Good article and good points.
In the first place,
What people aren't remembering about the history of DDT is that, in many places, it failed to eradicate malaria not because of environmentalist restrictions on its use but because it simply stopped working.
Complete rubbish!
If in fact, it is ineffective, it is reasonable to expect that going back to its use and finding it useless, people will stop using it. This obvious "D'OH! reality does not disuade the watermelons, who keep insisting that Rachel Carson (the main reason for the ban), was not only junk science; it was fraudulent.
It's like the lactose intolerant insisting on banning milk, because, of course, the world revolves around her!
Give me a break!
However, they may continue to use it for awhile in the mistaken belief that it is still effective (when it isn't), and using it when it is ineffective makes it worse than useless. I.e., using it when it is ineffective increases the development of resistance in target populations.
"Rachel Carson cited early anecdotal reports of various birds either dying of acute DDT poisoning (usually by eating poisoned insects) or experiencing reproductive problems, thus giving her her title conceit. No birds singing, a silent spring, get it? Her book was a popular phenomenon, and not surprisingly her claims drew the attention of a lot of researchers."
This is in contrast to your calling the book a "farce". It was not a scientific publication, hence the use of "documented" in the original op-ed is inaccurate. However, Carson wasn't making things up, either.
DDT AND ITS DERIVATIVES - ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
The link above is cited in his article, but I can't get it to fully load. Good luck.
I'm not convinced. The studies were very limited and never reproduced. Causal effects were shady. I don't buy it.
That's fine -- I wasn't selling Carson sainthood shares, anyway. The main point of the post was to provide some clear information about the pros and cons of DDT usage via the article. DDT can and should be used, and proper usage can maximize its effectiveness with little environmental impact. Improper and/or haphazard usage is inadvisable.
The claim that "DDT stopped working" is BS as well. Within the last few years a new program to use DDT in a limited way in southern Africa resulted in a massive reduction in malaria deaths. I forget the details, but when the country was again arm twisted into stopping the program, malaria deaths increased dramatically.
The current method of limited DDT use doesn't even involve spraying it in the environment. It's merely painted on the windows of houses, which causes mosquitoes to avoid them. Mosquitoes are "immune" to DDT, because they've evolved a strong ability to avoid it. Since most mosquitoes bite at night, when people are at home asleep, painting it in windows is very effective at reducing malaria.
But the worshipers of Rachel Carson still will not allow such a blasphemy. It makes you think they like dead people.
The comparison with Hitler is apt. Since Hitler's final solution, never have so few "well meaning" people killed so many, because of such willful blindness.
DDT use is not banned in Africa, nor in any Third World countries that need it. Aid agencies did pressure some countries to stop using it. That was stupid. (I'm not arguing that it wasn't stupid.)
Malaria Foundation International / DDT page
The claim that "DDT stopped working" is BS as well. Within the last few years a new program to use DDT in a limited way in southern Africa resulted in a massive reduction in malaria deaths. I forget the details, but when the country was again arm twisted into stopping the program, malaria deaths increased dramatically.
It *did* and *does* stop working, especially if it is used in a widespread manner (outdoor spraying). When the use of it was stopped, over time the genes for resistance in mosquito population slowly disappeared, so it could start working again. Re-read what the article says about DDT-resistant populations.
You are perhaps thinking of this situation:
"South Africa illustrates these limitations in practice. Facing pressure from environmentalists, the national malaria control programme abandoned DDT in favour of more expensive pyrethroid insecticides in 1996. Within three years, pyrethroid resistant A funestus mosquitoes invaded KwaZulu-Natal province, where they had not been seen since DDT spraying began in the 1940s. Malaria cases then promptly soared, from just 4117 cases in 1995 to 27 238 cases in 1999 (or possibly 120 000 cases, judging by pharmacy records). Other provinces experienced similar catastrophes, and South Africa was forced to return to DDT spraying this year. It had little alternative: no other insecticide, at any price, was known to be equally effective."
Note that the use of it was never banned, though a ban was discussed in international negotiations. Shortsighted environmentalists did cause some countries to stop using it.
"DDT is now back in use in KwaZulu Natal and according to Jotham Mthembu, head of the malaria control programme at Jozini in KZN, conditions have improved. Gerhard Verdoorn of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, the South African green group, has given his approval to the use of DDT and even trained sprayers. "DDT is used in tiny quantities and there is simply no prospect of any environmental damage arising from its use," he says."
The current method of limited DDT use doesn't even involve spraying it in the environment. It's merely painted on the windows of houses, which causes mosquitoes to avoid them. Mosquitoes are "immune" to DDT, because they've evolved a strong ability to avoid it. Since most mosquitoes bite at night, when people are at home asleep, painting it in windows is very effective at reducing malaria.
This is completely true (the quote I provided underscores this). They also spray it on furniture and bedding indoors.
That is sophistry, pure and simple, and defies common sense.
If DDT is effective, the results and either immediate or evidebt in the short term.
If it promotes further resistance, as in selective survival of the fittest, it is long term. if there is a relationship between the two it is a manufactured one.
Unfortunately, malarial deaths have never been "almost nothing". In some African areas where malaria had been reduced, abandonment of DDT did lead to a markedly increased rate of malarial cases, but not millions of deaths.
Rachel Carlson is a mass murderer and May Berenbaum and her fellow apologists are her enablers.
I really don't think you read the article very closely. Berenbaum wasn't an apologist for Carson. This is the second-to-last paragraph to which I referred. Read it for comprehension:
"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."
Just keep in mind that hundreds of thousands are dead from malaria because of environmentalist do-gooders who prevented DDT from being used as much as it should have been.
That is true.
If it promotes further resistance, as in selective survival of the fittest, it is long term. if there is a relationship between the two it is a manufactured one.
I'm not sure of your point, but the article says:
"In the continued presence of the insecticide, susceptible populations can be rapidly replaced by resistant ones. 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."
That's one of the primary reasons I posted this article!
"Read it for comprehension:"
I did read it. It is a lie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.