Slashdot Mirror

was abandoned in poor countries subject to malaria, such as Sri Lanka, in the 1970s and 1980s, not because of government prohibitions, but because the DDT had lost its ability to kill the mosquitoes

http://www.malaria.org/attarannaturemed.html :

"American funds, which underwrote the eradication campaign, soon lapsed, and overuse of DDT in agriculture bred DDT-resistant mosquitoes."

"But despite 'resistance' in itself, DDT still works to alleviate mortality and morbidity. Resistance tests work by measuring whether mosquitoes survive a normally toxic dose of DDT. The tests wholly overlook two non-toxic actions of DDT: contact-mediated irritancy9, which drives mosquitoes off sprayed walls and out of doors before they bite, and volatile repellency10, 11, which deters their entry in the first place. Both actions disrupt human–mosquito contact and disease transmission."

BTW, I am from Sri Lanka.

And unless you have kids yourself, you'll never understand why we need to filter porn on the Internet.

Look I agree with you on the limited use of DDT for disease control. And unlike the grandparent post, I know that such use is still allowed.

I'm not a big fan of emotional manipulation though. My wife barely survived a bout with malaria in Madagascar (plus 2 relapses). But I know that doesn't make me informed on all the various aspects of DDT regulation.

It's not just the Stockholm Convention though. Most places where malaria is a major problem are dependent on aid. USAID and other donors promoted half assed alternatives to DDT. Since they controlled the purse strings they could control policy. Even now the WHO wants to phase out DDT

http://www.malaria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=42

The World Health Organization intends to phase out chemotherapy drugs, due to concerns about their health effects, WHO Public Health and Environment director Dr. Maria Neira announced recently. Those effects include anemia, diarrhea, reduced resistance to infection, potential birth defects and hair loss.

"These drugs save lives, but they are dangerous," she stated. "WHO is determined to end their use, motivate researchers to develop safer cancer treatments, and emphasize acceptable alternatives, like broccoli."

Imagine the shock and outrage that would follow such an announcement. Europe and the United States would demand her ouster and threaten to slash WHO's budget, if it tried such a thing.

But of course Dr. Neira and WHO made no such proposal. Instead, she and her co-conspirators are promoting something even more irresponsible - and deadly. They want to reverse the September 2006 decision to restore DDT to the Organization's malaria-fighting arsenal.

"WHO is concerned about health effects associated with DDT," she said during a recent conference in Dakar, Senegal. Her position, not the September decision, represents WHO's position regarding DDT for malaria control and its commitment to phasing the chemical out, she asserted.

Dr. Arata Kochi, director of WHO's malaria division, made his decision based on decades of evidence, and because he recognized that no other chemical in existence, at any price, does what DDT does.

Sprayed just once or twice a year on the walls of houses, this powerful repellant keeps most mosquitoes from entering; irritates those that do come in, so they don't bite; and kills any that land. Used this way, DDT can reduce malaria rates by 75% - and it is perfectly safe for people and the environment.

In effect, DDT places a huge bednet over the entire house. From dusk to dawn, it protects the inhabitants, whether they are sleeping or doing housework and homework.

The US Agency for International Development also reversed its policies and redeployed DDT. And European Commission President Barroso wrote that the EU recognizes and supports the right of countries to use DDT, under Stockholm Convention and WHO guidelines.

Fed up with the sickness and death, African countries are again using DDT and other sprays, not just to stabilize or "roll back" malaria, but to eradicate it.

Dr. Neira and her colleagues, however, appear wedded to the disastrous policies that kept malaria at unconscionable levels: 400 million cases and up to 2 million deaths a year â" half of them children. They continue to oppose insecticides, especially DDT, and insist that bednets, drugs, education and other "acceptable," non-chemical interventions will suffice.

These other interventions are also essential. But they are not enough to end malaria's reign of terror.

The nasty effects of chemo drugs are real. The alleged risks of using DDT are pure speculation. They are trumpeted by radical groups like Pesticide Action Network, who insist: Some researchers think DDT could be inhibiting lactation and might be related to premature births, low birth weights and slow reflexes in babies.

These risks are unproven and trivial, compared to the undeniable risks that DDT can prevent.

"Millions cannot work or go to school for weeks every year because of malaria," Ugandaâ(TM)s Fiona Kobusingye points out. "Countless people die. Mothers have anemia, premature births and tiny babies because of it. Parents and children get severe permanent brain dama

If you'd like to help, and to see some extensively footnoted facts:

http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html

I've lost a lot of loved ones to cancer, including one last Wednesday, so I do not casually dismiss cancer risks or cancer solutions.
I haven't lost anyone to Malaria, but I'm sure it's just as painful.
So I don't casually dismiss Malaria risks, or Malaria solutions.

You do realize that using DDT to control disease bearing things like mosquitos is still allowed don't you? http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html

Except that the idea that 150K deaths are being caused by so-called "climate-shift" (I notice they don't like to call it global warming after all the SNOW storms last winter) is a bunch of crap.

From the above mentioned Washington Post link:

The data, being published today in the journal Nature, indicate that climate change is driving up rates of malaria, malnutrition and diarrhea throughout the world.

No...what's causing rates of malaria to rise is the banning of the use of chemicals that WORKED when it came to killing mosquitoes. Some places in the US are even banning the spraying of mosquitoes at all.

Malnutrition and diarrhea has more to do with poor drinking water and oppressive governments. The idea that every hurricane, flood or snowstorm is a sign of climate change is bad science. It's like the Greeks thinking Zeus was responsible for thunderbolts and Poseidon controlled the ocean!

Spending time and effort on a $100 laptop is misguided given the magnitude of public health problems in the Third World.
Take malaria for example.
- It kills 2.7 million people a year.
- It causes billions in economic losses in countries that are already poor.
- It causes a great deal of suffering for hundreds of millions of people.
Unfortunately, it's hard to get people in the First World to pay attention to a disease which doesn't really affect them. It's much easier to get people interested in distributing cool electronics.

Spending time and effort on a $100 laptop is misguided given the magnitude of public health problems in the Third World.
Take malaria for example.
- It kills 2.7 million people a year.
- It causes billions in economic losses in countries that are already poor.
- It causes a great deal of suffering for hundreds of millions of people.
Unfortunately, it's hard to get people in the First World to pay attention to a disease which doesn't really affect them. It's much easier to get people interested in distributing cool electronics.

You source nothing to back up your assertion that DDT is environmentally safe, and then claim that the hundreds of millions of dollars would be better spent buying and spraying DDT instead of conducting research

Although you are putting words in his mouth by trying to make him say that DDT is environmentally safe, what you fail to note is that when used to combat malaria the side-effects of DDT plus the harm of any remaining malaria is significantly less than any other current solution.

Over 400 doctors agree: http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html

As for referencing a newly discovered gene and holding it up as some sort of solution, you are ignoring the many more years of R&D that will be required to make use of that information. In the mean time DDT spraying saves lives today and could come close to erradication if used properly.

Milloy (the "Junkman") is is PR stooge who speaks for industry. His tactic is to mix up reasonable critiques of genuine "junk science" with diatribes on favourite industry issues such as global warming and regulation in general.

This is not to say he is necessarily wrong, but that you should treat everything he says with extreme caution.

In the case of DDT, Malloy and friends claim that it has been "demagogued out of use", but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that bans have followed on from real concerns carefully considered.

There would appear to be significant commercial interests in removing bans on DDT. The list of sponsors on a prominent pro-DDT site should cause you to approach the evidence there with some scepticism.

Mercury: Overplayed or Overstated?
DDT: Controls Malaria which kills over a million people per year. and is a major killer of children under 5.
Dioxin: A baddie, But was it truly necessary to evacuate people?
Asbestos: Only things I saw was people complaining about others getting money for 'exposure' while showing no detrimental health effects.

Look at their sponsors. It seems that among them are some companies who would benefit from DDT, since they would probably produce it themselves. I think what we have here is an attempt by the chemical industry to allow a dangerous toxin to be used on poor populations who are ignorant of its dangers that would be very profitable for their own operations.

Malaria kills over one million people, mainly children, in the tropics each year, and DDT remains one of the few affordable, effective tools against the mosquitoes that transmit the disease. Attaran et al. explain that the scientific literature on the need to withdraw DDT is unpersuasive, and the benefits of DDT in saving lives from malaria are well worth the risks.