Posted on 04/05/2007 8:14:59 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
DDT - Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane – is a chemical pesticide that was banned in the United States in 1972. The movement to ban DDT can be attributed to Silent Spring¸ a book by biologist Rachel Carson. Silent Spring focused on pesticides – particularly DDT – and their effect on the environment, with special consideration to birds (hence the name of the book; a “Silent Spring” because there are no birds to sing.) Due to the banning of DDT in the United States, a movement towards a global ban was swiftly initiated. Today, the use of DDT – with certain exceptions, such as controlled in-door spraying – has been extinguished worldwide. The question arises: what was the cost of banning DDT? Considering what a cheap and effective pesticide DDT is, it is no surprise that many African countries are once again considering its use for combating mosquitoes that carry malaria. The usage of DDT is moral, because its ability to save human lives is well worth the potential environmental damage that DDT might cause.
First of all, consider that, in 2003, there were three hundred million cases of malaria throughout the world, with three million of those afflicted dying from the disease. A majority of these cases occurred in Africa. All of those lives could have been easily saved, and those lives are worth far more than the potential environmental damage that the increased usage of DDT could cause. It is surprising how many radical environmentalists tend to forget how valuable the human race can be. Despite the human race’s capacity for evil (Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Pol Pot are just a few that come to mind), there are also many who have done immeasurable good for human society and the world. Think of Reverend Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, Plato, or Aristotle. Think of famous conservationists like Theodore Roosevelt and Edward Abbey. Humans possess basic instincts like all other animals, but our rationality and intelligence make us a unique species: one worthy of protection over all others.
The immediate question that arises is how severe is the pollution caused by DDT. Numerous studies have been done on this very subject over the years, and some results have been made clear. For instance, as cited in WHO’s – the World Health Organization’s – Environmental Health Criteria pamphlet, bioaccumulation occurs due to the absorption of DDT by lower-level organisms. As these organisms are devoured, the concentration of DDT rises as one goes up through the food chain. Microorganisms are the most heavily affected by DDT, but fish are also highly susceptible to the pesticide. Considering how toxic DDT is to aquatic organisms, there is a real threat of endangering the aquatic food supply for humans. However, considering the most malaria outbreaks occur inland (such as in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and other African nations), this might seem like a problem that can be sufficiently dealt with. Unfortunately, DDT can spread far beyond its target area, since it can travel via air currents, oceanic currents, and carrier organisms migrating to other areas. The presence of rivers – for instance, the Nile River – also has to be taken into account when trying to determine how far DDT can spread. Historically, the largest area of concern has been the effect of DDT on birds; however, studies here have been mixed.
In Silent Spring¸ Carson wrote about how interference of man with nature has resulted in some unintended consequences. She relayed an Alabama woman’s tale of the aftermath of a massive spraying program mandated by the government against fire ants. “Our place has been a veritable bird sanctuary for over half of a century. Last July, we all remarked, ‘There are more birds than ever.’ Then, suddenly, in the second week of August, they all disappeared…It was eerie, terrifying. What was man doing to our perfect and beautiful world?” The eggshells of birds were becoming thinner, and DDT was labeled as the cause. However, subsequent studies were inconclusive on this matter. The World Health Organization showed that it was not DDT that resulted in the thinning of eggshells, but rather DDE. DDE –Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene – is a metabolite of DDT; in other words, DDE is what emerges once DDT is broken down by the metabolic process of an organism. Logically, this would still implicate DDT as a root cause of the eggshell thinning; in real-life circumstances, however, this is not the case. A study in the 1970s by Dr. Robert Heath showed that reproductive failure occurred in ducks subjected to DDE, but only when the chemical was present at astronomically high levels. To naturally achieve such a level of DDE through the consumption of DDT-tainted organisms alone would require eating a fish of Moby Dick proportions daily. Suffice it to say, the effect on natural wildlife doesn’t even compare to the sheer number of human lives lost to malaria. If it came down to choosing whether to let millions of humans live or to let certain species of aquatic animals live, I would choose the humans every single time. To suggest that a bird or a fish is somehow morally equivalent to a human being is outrageous.
Opposition to the use of DDT is still prominent, but supporters of its use in Africa know that fully legalizing the use of DDT without repercussions will result in a lot of excess money: money that was once set aside solely for controlling the spread of malaria in Africa. An experiment in 2001 along the Thai-Myanmar border compared the cost of three different scenarios in three different areas: using insecticide-treating bed nets (ITNs), spraying DDT, and settling for surveillance of malaria symptoms so that immediate treatment could begin. In the end, the bed nets cost one dollar and fifty-four cents per one case of prevented malaria. DDT spraying cost one dollar and eighty-seven cents per one case of prevented malaria; malaria surveillance was the most costly, as it cost two dollars and fifty cents per one case of prevented malaria. Although this seems to indicate that ITNs would be more effective than DDT at dealing with carriers of malaria, it should be noted that in Tanzania, the use of nets permitted a reduction in DDT spraying, but could not replace it without an increased malaria incidence. Bed nets treated with insecticide may allow for the use of less DDT, but it cannot completely replace it. DDT, unlike ITNs, can be directly applied to insects that carry malaria – mostly mosquitoes – and to areas where they congregate. With the savings that using DDT will bring, money that was once devoted towards controlling the spread of malaria would instead be spent on other concerns. Modernizing Africa, establishing a communications infrastructure between the various nations, delivering food and drinkable water to starving people, and providing modern medicine to the sick and diseased are some concerns that come to mind.
The impact of DDT on human health is something to be concerned with; there are some concerns that the pesticide has a link with sexual dysfunction. Studies on declining male reproductive health in Africa have resulted in a number of theories about the cause, and DDT is often touted as a primary cause. However, this is not a worrisome case; utilizing a survey, a physical examination, and an analysis of semen, it was concluded that – despite a slight decrease in sperm count in those who had been subjected to the insecticide – no strong evidence existed to link DDT to declining reproductive health in men. It should also be noted that studies have been made concerning the growth patterns of fetuses, infants, and toddlers after being exposed to DDT. After analyzing those who had in-utero exposure to DDT, it was concluded that there was no apparent impairment in the growth of young children. The pesticide’s effect on humans does not seem substantial; not enough to ban DDT altogether for the sake of human health.
Although DDT has its faults, it has been erroneously demonized for other environmental crises. Its banning has contributed to a horrific situation in Africa, where cheap pesticides are a necessity in combating malaria. African leaders, whose countries do not have the finances of modern countries like the United States and Britain, are undoubtedly concerned about the welfare of their people. Despite a vast amount of foreign aid, disease remains a prominent problem in Africa. A more effective – and surely much more appreciated – measure would be to simply let the people of Africa do what is necessary to stop the spread of malaria. Once Africa modernizes, then environmentalists can start worrying about conservation again. After all, there won’t be much of a point worrying about the environment if the humans are all dead from a disease that could have easily been averted.
I am a firm believer that some of the pesticides in use here in the “indutialized” world are as or more harmful than DDT. Particularly in mosquito-prone areas, DDT still would make an excellent weapon.
A typical enviro-nut response. I believe that mankind was given dominion. Genesis 1:26-28. Should we exercise that dominion with a sense of responsibility? Sure But I do not believe that we were given dominion to then place a higher priority on the bugs, fish, and other critters than to mankind.
It is easy to think of people as resource/wealth depleters and not wealth generators, but that is fallacious. As someone who has spent several years in Africa, I have seen, firsthand, the effects of malaria on the finances of African friends.
Whether malaria takes the family breadwinners or dependents, it is ruinous to the family-especially in African culture. When you are busy paying exorbitant medical and funeral bills, you have no capital left to provide food and shelter to your existing family. This leaves everyone in the family more vulnerable to whatever disease comes along, be it Malaria, AIDS, typhoid or cholera. Obviously no development or capital wealth can develop in the country.
The “effect” of no DDT in Africa (as well as corrupt regimes) is that there are fewer bright, energetic, hopeful Africans available to develop their natural resources and provide food and shelter. There are still an abundance of natural resources in Africa which sit unused alongside the graves of malaria victims.
Wrong question...
Was the banning of DDT moral?
Check the records and you will find the real reason for the ban was eugenics.
Third world population control.
Is there a scientifically proven link between DDT and cancer in humans ?
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.