DDT or Malaria -- Which is Worse?

Assassin bug wonders: "Although the topic of malaria has been discussed on Slashdot, DDT use has not. After having banned DDT (C14H9Cl5)" in 2004, Tanzania has reversed their ban on DDT use. What is the Slashdot community's opinion regarding the use of DDT for mosquito control versus genetically modified mosquitoes?" "Key facts to consider:

• Insects have developed resistance, for every tactic that has been used against them (including biological control, crop rotation, and various chemicals)
• Although the direct effects of DDT on humans might be benign, the effects on wildlife and the environment are well documented
• In some countries, such as India, popluations of DDT-resistant mosquitoes exist
• The fitness (i.e., reproductive success in the wild) of mutant mosquitoes is not well understood."

Comments

DDT

[Erich]

DDT use is allowed (even in the US, I think) for application around the home, ie. treating walls and such.

The alleged environmental impact was when the use was ultra-widespread, like dusting crops.

DDT is effective at fighting malaria in much of the world, applying just around the home, but chemical manufacturing companies largely stopped making it after it got a bad name from the environmental concerns.

Re:DDT

[barawn]

but chemical manufacturing companies largely stopped making it after it got a bad name from the environmental concerns.

You mean like after it decimated the ecosystem on Borneo, forcing 14,000 cats to be parachuted in to stop the population from dying of bubonic plague and typhus.

Alleged? Alleged? C'mon. This is well documented. DDT doesn't kill humans, but it sure does screw with a lot of other animals. It can be used intelligently, but it can also be used stupidly, too.

It's not even clear that when it's used intelligently that it's cost effective to do so. USAID doesn't believe that it is.

Re:DDT

[Anonymous Coward]

Having had malaria countless number of time, almost dying after doctors gave up on me and then barely making it, I would say its better to DDT the bastards than let people die.

However, I think there are more people in this world than there are mosquitoes so if a few million die off, no big whoop!!! :-)

But seriously, I've lived in Africa and Malaria is a serious health issue that has been underestimated and under publicized. While I do think finding a way to control malaria populations is the key, DDT shouldn't be the answer. The quantities required to kill the gazillions of mosquitoes would cause the same devastation to the planet that originally led to its ban. There are a number of alternatives being developed. Everything from neutered female mosquitoes (so they can't reproduce and the population dies down) to preventative medication (There are balms that you can rub onto exposed skin so that mosquitoes don't bite).

So lets create our armies of neutered female mosquitoes and take over the world...muahahahaha!!!

Sincerely,
The Mosquito Harem OverLord.

Re:DDT

[Alicat1194]

The alleged environmental impact was when the use was ultra-widespread, like dusting crops.

The problem with chemicals such as DDT is that they are persistent within the environment, and bioaccumulate. The levels used in a wetland to control mosquitos may only be low, but still be enough to damage the higher-order predators, as well as the mosquitos (ie: 1 frog gets a dose of x mg. A bird eats 10 frogs, bringing its dose to 10x. A cat eats 10 birds, which makes its dose 100x, etc)

DDT can also mimic oestrogren in some species, causing developmental problems in male offspring

It can also cause deformities and immuno supression.

Re:DDT

[Rei]

That's the thing: not only does DDT have a lot of nasty side effects (and stay in the system for a long time), but there are alternatives (pyrethroids, for example). Presenting the choice as "DDT or Malaria" is like saying "Be killed by a polar bear or exterminate all non-human mammals." It's a false binary choice. DDT is an option with advantages and disadvantages, but because it's disadvantages stick around for so long, it's generally rather unpopular.

Re:DDT

[Firethorn]

but there are alternatives (pyrethroids, for example)

Having read several articles about this very topic, it's been mentioned that none of the alternatives are either as effective as DDT, or, just as important for poor african nations, as inexpensive and easy to produce. The whole 'sticking around' thing is very usefull for mosquito suppression.

Nobody's supporting the wide-area spraying that went on in the US before the ban, where some states seemed determined to hit every square foot. They're talking about directed application like on occuppied building's doorways that use small amounts, the preventive effects last for a long time, and doesn't really get into the ecosphere.

Re:DDT

[gstoddart]

You mean like after it decimated the ecosystem on Borneo, forcing 14,000 cats to be parachuted in to stop the population from dying of bubonic plague and typhus.

Not to derail your very good point, but ....

Parachuting 14,000 cats? If anotehr poster hadn't already posted corroborating links I'd be disbelieving you right about now.

Man. The sheer visual of 14,000 feline paratroopers just gives me the giggles.

Re:DDT

[waif69]

DDT is not allowed for sale in the US, at least to consumers.

Re:DDT

[Wavicle]

1) DDT did not decimate the ecosystem of Borneo
2) There were no outbreaks of plague or typhus. Every instance you find of someone saying this is someone retelling a trumped up story they heard. The cats were dropped because there was FEAR an outbreak would occur. It didn't.
3) The insect control measures in Borneo are today considered to have been a great success. The problem of malaria went away. Thousands of children lived who might otherwise have died, and as I mentioned, there was no outbreak of plague or typhus.
4) Sorry, I just don't take USAID's position on DDT seriously. They have in the past shown themselves to be tools of of the anti-DDT environmental lobby.

Re:DDT

[14CharUsername]

Interestingly, seeing 14,000 cats parachuted in to Borneo can be caused by both DDT and LSD.

Re:DDT

[barawn]

DDT did not decimate the ecosystem of Borneo

Okay, okay, decimate is too strong a word. But it did damage the rivers severely causing large fish die-offs, and when you kill off an entire species in the areas (cats), that's not exactly "no effect."

There were no outbreaks of plague or typhus.

Curiously enough, I didn't say there was. I said the cats were dropped to stop the population from dying. It worked.

Every instance you find of someone saying this is someone retelling a trumped up story they heard. The cats were dropped because there was FEAR an outbreak would occur. It didn't. ... because they dropped the cats!

What am I missing here?

The insect control measures in Borneo are today considered to have been a great success. The problem of malaria went away. Thousands of children lived who might otherwise have died

Yes. Which is why I'm not opposed to it in principle. I'm opposed to people who say it doesn't do any damage. It does. You have to know what you're doing ahead of time. If you just blindly go ahead and do it on a large scale, you could end up with more problems than you started with.

Incidentally, regarding "children living who might otherwise have died", you might want to take a look at Corin & Weaver's paper from the JRTPH. DDT's effects in humans, while not life-threatening, should cause problems with lactation cycles and premature births. It's entirely possible given the levels used that DDT is a net detriment. In any case, it's worse than alternative treatments.

Sorry, I just don't take USAID's position on DDT seriously. They have in the past shown themselves to be tools of of the anti-DDT environmental lobby.

There's plenty of evidence to support their claim. See here, for instance, or here, both of which show that insecticide-treated nets are more cost effective than DDT.

Re:DDT

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't really get into the ecosphere.

No such thing. DDT takes forever to break down on its own, and forcing it to break down takes an enormous amount of energy (heat) and requires wiping an infected land bare.

Deciding to use DDT should be like deciding to use a nuke. You shouldn't say ``never,'' but there are many, many options before you get to that level.

Re:DDT

[kiatoa]

Having had malaria countless number of time, almost dying after doctors gave up on me and then barely making it

I'm curious. What did they try to treat you with? Apparently there is a plant based treatment (Sweet wormwood/Artemesian?) that does both prevention and cure and outdoes the conventional solutions but hasn't become widely known yet. Here is a powerpoint with some information: http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/biopharm/ppt/artemi s.ppt. My wife (who is an Herbalist) had us take the stuff while on a trip to Belize. It doesn't prove much but we didn't get Malaria :-)

Rachael Carson = Bad Science

[FooAtWFU]

From Why we need DDT:

In fact, DeWitt's 1956 article in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry came to a very different conclusion. DeWitt reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT. Carson also omitted to mention DeWitt's report that DDT-fed pheasants hatched about 50 percent more eggs than 'control' pheasants. As to DDT causing cancer in humans, study after study reports no association between DDT exposure and cancer rates.

Dr Joel Bitman and his associates at the US Department of Agriculture published an article in Nature in 1969, which found that Japanese quail fed DDT produced eggs with thinner shells and lower calcium content. Further examination of Dr Bitman's study revealed that the quails under experiment had been fed a diet with a calcium content of only 0.56 percent, whereas a normal quail diet consists of 2.7 percent calcium. Calcium deficiency is known to cause thin eggshells. After much criticism, Bitman repeated the test, this time with sufficient calcium levels, and the birds produced eggs without thinned shells.

Following years of feeding experiments, scientists at the Department of Poultry Science at Cornell University 'found no tremors, no mortality, no thinning of eggshells and no interference with reproduction caused by levels of DDT which were as high as those reported to be present in most of the wild birds where "catastrophic" decreases in shell quality and reproduction have been claimed' (2).

Re:Rachael Carson = Bad Science

[barawn]

And I suppose that the cats parachuted into Borneo to stop a plague epidemic after DDT destroyed the local cat population were 'bad science' too?

Look, DDT has uses. It can be useful under proper control. But we don't exactly have a good track record of handling these things. And DDT does destroy ecosystems. It has. That's fact. That's not bad science. It happened.

It's healthy to be skeptical of its use. History is littered with examples where we just tried to mildly affect an ecosystem and ended up demolishing it, causing far more harm than good. I could go on, and on, and on...

Re:Rachael Carson = Bad Science

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's fact show some real studies. It's not fact it is COMPLETELY made up!

Here, have a few FACTS, you might learn something.
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

Re:Rachael Carson = Bad Science

[Anonymous Coward]

DDT is a pesticide. It kills [some] insects. When you kill certain whole populations, it can throw the ecosystem out of whack. Unfortunately, that may be necessary to fight malaria. It may also be possible to use DDT in ways that fight malaria without killing 100% of certain insect populations.

That is, the mosquitos that DDT doesn't kill will stay away from the sprayed areas. You don't have to spray the whole countryside with DDT in order to stop malaria, you may be able to get away with just spraying the areas where people live (their walls). This will keep the pests away without killing them all, and therefore will not be so destructive to their ecosystem.

BTW, birds tend to flourish in the presence of DDT. If you kill the insects that spread avian diseases and eat the crops (which birds like to feed on), the birds become more abundant -- or at least those that don't feed on the insects you killed off.

dom

Re:Rachael Carson = Bad Science

[barawn]

Jeez, read the link that I posted, for crying out loud, before suggesting that I'm making things up. So many DDT advocates just attack Silent Spring that they completely forget that DDT does have documented effects on other organisms. Like, cats for instance.

Yes, Silent Spring was wrong. But the complete devastation of the Borneo ecosystem was caused by DDT.

Re:Rachael Carson = Bad Science

[barawn]

It kills [some] insects.

It also kills caterpillars, and some reptiles and mammals too. Not humans, though, and not birds. But cats do die from it, for instance.

This will keep the pests away without killing them all, and therefore will not be so destructive to their ecosystem.

Right, I agree. Unfortunately DDT's main benefit was that it could be blindly sprayed cheaply and provide blanket protection against malaria.

This is insane. It destroys ecosystems and ends up causing far more harm than good.

But done in small doses, it's not clear that DDT is cheaper than other protection mechanisms. (As mentioned by USAID - see the Wikipedia article for a reference.)

Riiiiibit

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is frogs. Big freaking frogs. With lasers on their heads!

Re:Riiiiibit

[Anonymous Coward]

Would those be frickin' lasers by any chance? Because you know and I know that a laser just ain't a laser unless it's frickin'.

What?

Re:Riiiiibit

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the dragonfly is the mosquitoe's worst natural enemy. Still, funny shit. Mosquitoe's with friggin laser beams!

Darwinism-awards.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Which has the greater likelihood of killing an organism before that organism has a chance to reproduce?"

Putting them in a VW bug with a rocket motor.

DDT Use

[Yehooti]

In areas where the human population is taking a beating because of the pests, use the best method we have available to kill them. Right now these particular pests seem most susceptible to DDT. So use it in those selected areas. The mosquitoes targeted will most likely develop resistance to it but in the meanwhile it will give us some time. As in the warfare against bacteria, our antibiotics are constantly being defeated as we are forced to develop newer methods. But to give up a currently viable alternative to giving up on DDT seems excessive. I'd guess that we're holding it back as a last ditch offensive, but are not at that point now in some areas of the world?

Re:DDT Use

[Detritus]

The problem with pesticides and antibiotics is that they are often abused and misapplied through ignorance, stupidity and greed. Read how China may have fscked the entire world by using a human antiviral drug in an effort to protect the Chinese poultry industry from bird flu.

Re:DDT Use

[hackwrench]

The problem isn't mosquitos, but the malaria they carry. Furthermore, the Slasdot title is confused, the choice isn't between DDT and Malaria, but DDT and mosquitos that are no longer malaria carriers and therefore cannot transmit it to humans.

Re:DDT Use

[Anonymous Coward]

What if humans are simply over-breeding and need to be culled like every other invasive species, whether by malaria, AIDS, cancer or war? Won't using DDT to thin out a vector of control allow this highly toxic species to fuck more, creating more humans who live longer, fuck even *more*, thus furthering poverty, deprivation and depletion of the environment? All of this, compared to keeping DDT on the shelf?

Suddenly, those environmentalists don't seem so loony, after all.

Re:DDT Use

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Thank you for that link, I bookmarked it. The last time I related that story, someone responded saying that the Chinese government would never do something like that, and I didn't have a link handy.

Re:DDT Use

[barawn]

Or, more on topic, how the WHO screwed over Borneo by recklessly spraying DDT without first examining its effects on the local population. They ended up very likely causing more deaths than the malaria outbreak originally would have.

Re:DDT Use

[BobPaul]

Antibiotics are much more controlled (if ingested, they only affect organisms within your body) and targeted (there are different antibiotics that do affect bacteria in different ways, exploiting differet weaknesses that bacteria have).

DDT pretty much just kills things. It's not only affective against Mosquitoes, but also many important insects. And once those insects die, they become food for other animals which tends to cause them to disappear enmasse causing population spikes in other populations and lots of problems overall.

But I don't know. In the states they often spray ditch water with some sort of chemical to kill insect larva. Seems like it'd be hard to do such controlled spraying in the rain forests, though.

Re:DDT Use

[porkchop_d_clown]

And here it is again!

Don't you have *anything* else to talk about?

Re:DDT Use

[Hoplite3]

I still think that the best source of stories on the overuse of erratication programs is Laurie Garett's The Coming Plague. She discusses how the Small Pox eradication (one of the most successful) weaponized small pox, how cleaning with bleach has bread super-bacteria in some hospitals that can be cultured on undiluted Clorox.

Her point (about antibiotics and mosquito control) was that we should try to domesticate of microbal advisaries. If you can produce a strain of a disease that has a short, mild infection -- but out-competes the original, you've turned a lion into a house cat. For mosquitos, if we could replace the asian tiger variety with another that can't host malaria, we'd be set.

Also, more direct methods of mosquito control are useful. Many tropical communities now pay people to wander around town draining pools of stagnant water. Sure, you don't get them all, but you can drain enough that the mosquito population decreases dramatically. It's a continual effort, but uses no chemicals.

Re:DDT Use

[will_die]

how cleaning with bleach has bread super-bacteria in some hospitals that can be cultured on undiluted Clorox
You are a little off here.
The problem is that the use of non-bleach clearers are creating bacteria that are resistant to anything but bleach based cleaners.
Bleach is the best thing around to kill bacteria the way it works is to disolve the skin wall, no way to build up a resistance to that.

Re:DDT Use

[MrZaius]

In areas where the human population is taking a beating because of the pests, use the best method we have available to kill them.

It is neither appropriate nor desirable to use extermination in lieu of proper quarantine procedures, when treating infectious diseases. In fact, the point of treating these diseases is to prevent death.

It's true

[Henry V .009]

The DDT necessary to save thousands of lives in the world's malarial hellholes is miniscule compared to that required for the crops of even a medium farm.

And DDT-hate on the part of international aid organizations (international aid is the entire health budget for some impoverished African countries) has led to countries refraining from using DDT.

Not using DDT kills poor Africans.

DDT is the cheapest, most effective way of protecting against the world's deadliest disease. Anti-malarial netting is somewhat effective, but simply does not compare to DDT.

Re:It's true

[AlexanderDitto]

Alright, so say they DO start using DDT in a more widespread fashion to kill off these mosquitos. Ignoring the possible environmental aspects (which, from what I'm now reading, are iffy in themselves), when does it stop? When will Africa be safe from these mosquitos, allowing them to stop using the DDT?

The answer is never. Unless ALL malaria is wiped out in ALL organisms around the world, DDT will have to be continously used FOREVER to prevent malaria from breaking out.

This will eventually stop working. Some mosquito will happen to have a mutation that makes it resistant, and suddenly the DDT no longer works. Now we have a group of people who have been exposed to a pestiside for long periods of time, as well as a group of bugs who are RESISTANT to a pesticide.

Where do we go from here? We need something better, something a little more advanced than Super Raid.

Re:It's true

[Lehk228]

a possible (or even certain) problem in the future is better thqan that same problem now. by the time DDT loses effectiveness we might have better treatment for malaria or better cheap insecticides.

obviously the risk to the environment is a factor but i'm not willing to tell people they have to get sick and die because we don't want the jungle they live in/near contaminated with insecticides.

it should be their choice.

Re:It's true

[Anonymous Coward]

The big secret that no one talks about is that there are a lot of people that prefer poor africans die (of malaria, aids, or whatever). There are a lot of people getting rich from "international aid", and they don't have any interest in cutting themselves off.

Re:It's true

[AlexanderDitto]

You're giving the choice to people who may not exactly have the best idea of the worldwide scope of their actions. That's the problem with most people and the environment. Somebody throws an SEP field around it or figures that the one teensey thing they do in their backyard won't affect the whole big wide world, and then you've got a quarter billion people dumping lead paint down their storm drains. "We'll deal with it in the future," they say.

by the time DDT loses effectiveness we might have better treatment for malaria or better cheap insecticides.

You're putting stock in something that may or may not happen. What if they had said that 40 years ago? "Well, by the year 2000, they're BOUND to have fixed this problem! We can just keep using DDT for now..."

And suddenly, in the year 1995, children learn to burp chlorine gas.

You're right in that the situation is now looking to be that in which we have no real choice. People are dying, we need to do something, our current options are limited. But I don't want scientists to give up the fight for something better and sit on their bums, just because "well, we have something that works now." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" doesn't apply here.

Re:It's true

[Jeff DeMaagd]

a possible (or even certain) problem in the future is better thqan that same problem now. by the time DDT loses effectiveness we might have better treatment for malaria or better cheap insecticides.

That takes research that isn't being done and especially money that isn't being spent. I heard a program on Science Friday that said that many strains of malaria are almost totally resistant against current drugs, in part because they are being misused. I think the comment was that there were many more drugs being developed for erectile dysfunction than there are for malaria and similar diseases that are killing countless people.

At any rate, it is a little irresponsible to blindly continue doing something now in the hopes that there is a fix for the problems that action creates. This is a very difficult issue because there are potential consequences on both sides that must be carefully weighed.

Re:It's true

[Lehk228]

if we don't do something about malaria right now even more REAL PEOPLE will die. yes it may be a long term harmful decision but we don't have the right to tell people they must die in order to protect birds and other animals.

Re:It's true

[ivan256]

You're missing the point somewhat though.

We have a better cure for malaria. It's a combination of education, and pennicillin. The trouble is, it's not a simple fix. It requires a generation to transition to that solution, because people won't be educated enough to use antibiotics in a way that isn't harmful quickly enough. DDT use should be combined with economic progress and education.

In simpler terms, wealth cures malaria, and malaria prevents wealth. DDT breaks the chicken and egg cycle.

Re:It's true

[martinX]

Are you proposing that malaria be treated with penicillin?

Re:It's true

[ivan256]

Clearly I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about. Please move along.

Re:It's true

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that the cure for the epidemic might prove to be harmful at some point, so why bother? I think a chemical that kills you after 50 years is better than a disease that kills you when you're 5.

Besides, it doesn't matter if the mosquitos are resistant to it. DDT works if you just spray it on your walls -- not because the mosquitos are all on your walls at the time, but because the mosquitos stay away from the sprayed areas and don't infect you.

dom

Re:It's true

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we do. The long-term fate of the species outweighs the value of contemporary human lives. If they want our aid, then they will comply with our ecological demands. If instead they wish to develop their own economies, then they can spray DDT up their rectums. The widespread use of DDT rather than strategic use of pesticides will simply produce DDT-resistent disease vectors. Meaning that if there were, for whatever reason, a pandemic stemming from these shitholes that DDT would be completely useless for reducing the populations carrying it. Meaning many more lives would be lost globally because some retards felt spraying DDT over everything in the tropics was a good idea. I'd forcefully relocate them to landmasses where such vectors do not thrive, rather than waste time trying to conquer areas that hardly support their human populations when not even considering malaria.

Re:It's true

[Anonymous Coward]

Not using DDT kills poor Africans.

In early, more racist times, there was a phrase, "white man's burden". It was the idea that the caucasian race had the moral duty to care for, nurture, and govern inferior races. This attitude was seen in Apartheid, British rule over India, and still seen in the US reservation system.

This attitude was a progressive attitude at the time. Instead of treating other races as inferior, treat them as children who need firm parenting. This attitude still exists among modern progressivism. Why the bitch about free trade with brown Mexico, but nothing is about the free trade with white Canada? Why the bitch about brown India having a lot of talented programmers? Why endless litany that brown people in Iraq aren't ready for democracy? Why the insistance that brown skinned immigrants NOT learn the local language, a necessary first step in escaping poverty? Why is it that the white progressive accords to himself the burden of being the spokesman for all other races?

It may not be a hate-based racism, but the paternalism infecting the modern left is racism nonetheless.

Re:It's true

[Anonymous Coward]

Why even bring skin colour into this?

Africans are people who live in Africa (where malaria is a major problem amongst the poor).

You should read Not using DDT kills poor people living in Africa., not Not using DDT kills poor brown people, you racist bastard! (see how easy it is to sling the term around)

Off-topic but perhaps people bitch about free trade with countries with cheap work pools and poor working conditions since they pose a threat (real or imaginary) to their own jobs and working conditions. Canada's working conditions are probably better than the US and no one bitches about trade with yellow (it's cute how you colour each country) Japan, though they used to when it was a poorer country (now they just complain about the cost of the PS3).

Here's a hint to understanding racism. Most just don't like poor people, they do crazy, scary, desperate shit (like work in crap conditions for next to nothing). Some hate what scares them, some try to help them by treating them like stupid children. Racists are the ones too dumb to see the person instead of the race demographic.

Re:It's true

[maxume]

The point isn't "DDT is the solution to the problem", it is that the use of DDT now has more benefits that it does costs. It will save lives, in exchange for some amount of environmental damage. You are right that it isn't a solution forever, but if it is a currently the best solution and costs < benefits, I say go.

Fortunately, using DDT doesn't preclude work on creating a better solution. It's not like Tanzania is in a position to fund research right now.

Re:It's true

[R2.0]

But that's OK to Western environmental types - only brown people are dying.

And DON'T tell me that race has nothing to do with it. If this was happening in Western Europe or the US they'd bring back Agent Orange.

Re:It's true

[zimus]

I have a better idea - why don't you and everyone else who holds the life a some bug or animal above human lives - trade place with those people whom you are sentencing to death with your anti-DDT venom. I venture to say that once you actually witness the cost of your idiotic stance, and personally feel the unfathomable pain that is inflicted on you from malaria - you would moderate your stance some. Then again, you probably wouldn't - as there is clearly something broken inside your head if you think the life of some bug or animal is worth more than a human life.

Re:It's true

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a better idea you mentally-retarded illiterate: Why don't you get it through your head that blanket use of DDT kills more people than its judicious application. There are mosquito populations immune to DDT in the tropics precisely because morons such as yourself cannot think beyond the end of your dick. Wahhh wahh human life is more important than animals and insects. People like you are why Sri Lanka suffered numerous deaths at the hands of DDT-resistent disease vectors. People like you will doom our species, because you'll waste every weapon we have in fighting the spread of disease pointlessly trying to extinguish life in the tropics.

Re:It's true

[E 99]

Or to summarize: There's a chance that DDT won't work forever, so lets let 2 million African children die every year. After all there's a theory that one of those 2 million saved children might get sick later -- so just to be safe... ...and anyway, 2 people died of West Nile Virus in New York last summer, so we're going to need the world's supply of DDT over here.

Re:Rachael Carson = Knew what she was talking bout

[AlexanderDitto]

"It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting [is the advice given in Holland by Dr Briejer in his capacity as director of the Plant Protection Service]. Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity.""

-Rachel Carson, Silent Spring

Note the last sentence. It seems she KNEW that in some cases, not using DDT would amount in a LARGE amount of damage, and in these cases, using DDT would be unavoidable. Spray as little as you possible can seems to be common sense, but may not be to the uneducated.

It IS known that DDT builds up in the tissues of organisms high up in food chains. Perhaps studies don't indicate that DDT directly causes any sort of harm, but I don't think having an organochlorine in ANY fleshy parts is a good thing.

offtopic, but hey:

[jannesha]

The insects were heard to complain
That man had poisoned their rain
The cause of their sorrow
Was para-dichloro-
diphenyl-trichloroethane

...ahh, takes me back to third-year organic chem...

Re:offtopic, but hey:

[barawn]

I always preferred The Day They Parachuted Cats on Borneo, by Charlotte Pomerantz. It's unfortunately out of print now, though I still have a copy.

It's an entire story of the Borneo DDT disaster, told in rhyme. To quote:

"When they sprayed my hut with insecticide,
My rat catching cat soon sickened and died.
When the rats crawled in, I was filled with fear:
The plague can kill more than malaria here.
When my roof beams caved in, I moved next door.
Until their roof beams collapsed to the floor.

But please, do not think I wish to offend,
For DDT is the farmer's good friend.
Still, perhaps you'll allow a poor man to say,
He hopes men of science will soon find a way
To kill the mosquitoes till all, all are dead -
But save the roof beams which are over my head,
As well as my most useful rat-catching cat.
How grateful I'd be if you'd only do that!

Then, men of science, I would not complain.
But now I must look to my roof - I smell rain!"

The DDT sickened the caterpillars, which were eaten by geckos. The geckos sickened and were eaten by cats. The cats sickened and died - and then rats moved in, and cats had to be parachuted into Borneo. But the geckos were still gone, and then roofbeams collapsed due to the resurging caterpillar population. Oh, and the rivers were screwed up too, did I mention?

Note the farmer's lament above: it's truly appropriate here. DDT is useful. It is a good way to kill mosquitos. But it is dangerous. It has destroyed ecosystems, and it has killed people.

(My favorite line from the book, though, from the geckos as they're dying: "At night the caterpillars and the roaches Walk right up to us and say, Buenas Noches." It really is an excellent book.)

Re:offtopic, but hey:

[slarabee]

You mean the same Charlotte Pomerantz who wrote Noah's and Namah's Ark? Well, now that her bonafides as an author of historically accurate treatises has been established...

Your two other quoted sources in a previous post are not much better. Neither even pretends to support their version of the Borneo story with a shred of documentation. Puttering about on the web for a few minutes shows many many slight variants of the same precautionary tale, but none surpass the level of unsubstantiated anecdote.

Could you point inquisitive Slashdot readers to original sources for the story? Perhaps some hard data that can link a mass feline extinction to DDT spraying? Something detailing this rat carried plague that swept the region? Is there more to this story than hearsay and urban legend?

Even an accurate geographical description of the area involved would be nice. I have seen the story written as affecting all of Borneo, the northern half of Borneo, and one part in the north of Borneo.

Some variants say the cats ate DDT contaminated cockroaches. Some say the cats ingested lizards which had ingested DDT contaminated insects. Some versions add the anecdote of the collapsing roofs from a lack of caterpillar controlling wasps. Some claim the caterpillars were ingested by the cats. Some claim the caterpillars were ingested by the lizards which were ingested by the cats. Some mention only a rat population problem being fixed by cat drops. Some mention plague problems being spread by the rats (the DDT didn't hit the plague carrying insects on the rats?). Some have cats being parachuted. Some have cats being trucked.

Call me skeptical of DDT causing the "complete devastation of the Borneo ecosystem."

Re:offtopic, but hey:

[barawn]

Neither even pretends to support their version of the Borneo story with a shred of documentation.

Oh, for crying out loud. Just do a little research?

How about here which is an eye-witness account from 1959 of the cat drop?

Is that good enough?

Re:offtopic, but hey:

[barawn]

Here also is a more detailed history as well. Look in the "Malaria control in the Borneo states".

Yes, it did cause the thatch roofs to rot and collapse.

And if you're wondering why the confusion: it's because all of those things happened. Just depended on where you were - in Sarawak the cockroaches killed the cats, in Sabah the geckoes killed the cats. In Sabah the cats were trucked in. In Sarawak, where the area is inaccessible, the cats were parachuted in.

"Complete devastation" was too strong, I'll agree. I just get a little defensive when people state blindly that DDT is fine for the environment. No, it isn't. It's very bad if used in ridiculous quantities. Note also that that's what Silent Spring was trying to say, as well.

(And did I say that the plague actually happened? If I did, that was a whoops: the plague nearly happened. The rats in the area are plague carriers).

What's funny about this: The reason I usually start with the Pomerantz story is it's basically the only place I've ever seen it. The Harrison article is quoted in the story above as the source for a few pieces of information (but not all). There isn't a single bit in Wikipedia regarding DDT and Borneo at all, and in general the pages that I found searching Google only were teacher's guides. Google Scholar had a bit more, but honestly, it seems this really doesn't get mentioned that often.

Re:offtopic, but hey:

[slarabee]

Oh, for crying out loud, my little research showed that there is still nothing remotely like the "complete devastation of the Borneo ecosystem" or "14,000 cats to be parachuted in to stop the population from dying of bubonic plague and typhus" or "Borneo to stop a plague epidemic" or "DDT does destroy ecosystems. It has. That's fact." or "It destroys ecosystems and ends up causing far more harm than good." or "They ended up very likely causing more deaths than the malaria outbreak originally would have." or "It has destroyed ecosystems, and it has killed people."

And did I say that the plague actually happened? If I did, that was a whoops: the plague nearly happened.

Yep. Note the quote pile above. Four references to plague or human deaths. That was the primary hyperbole the motivated me to write my first response. Once some research was done, I was even more skeptical of the Borneo tales as evidence of the evils of DDT.

1. 14,000 cats? Where does that number come from?

2. A number of complaints of roof failure were reported. Not all. Not the majority. A number. A number also collapsed outside the sprayed area according to your own source. The DDT contributed to the failures in some areas, but the unifying and underlying factor inside and outside the sprayed area seems to have been poor quality thatching which was susceptible to larvae munching.

3. DDT lead to cat deaths? Possible. Yes. Probable. Yes again. Probable to the point of being conclusive? Not for me. Any PDFs out there you know of that discuss tissue samples being taken? Field autopsies and examinations of livers? This is the same 'common sense' claim about DDT that led to several decades of spreading the thin egg shell meme about the world. I fell for that one and parroted it myself. Not going to make that mistake again.

4. Human deaths? DDT worse than the malaria? Gordon writes, "Luckily, these rat outbreaks did not produce any outbreaks of disease." Gordon also writes, "As a whole the campaign has been regarded as a model one, and has been used in training for later campaigns in other countries." The first hand pilot report contains the following, "The effect within even a year was extraordinary. Now, by 1964, it is really remarkable; the whole energy, vitality, and happiness of the people--especially the remote tribes far from all previous medical aid--has changed l0O per cent for the better. It is a positive delight to see. I have yet to see the like, within a decade, anywhere else in my life of travel and observation about the world."

To summarize after reading every source you have linked to in addition to a couple dozen websites I discovered on my own: DDT and Dieldrin were sprayed. Some roofs collapsed. Some cats died. Rat population increased. Rat population controlled. Zero human deaths. People happy and healthy.

Will I be drinking a DDT martini tonight? No. But when I skip over other mosquito carried diseases to research annual malaria deaths alone and find numbers in the seven digits...how many cats and roofs are worth a million human lives a year?

the banning of DDT

[for(x1,x!1,x )]

Actualy If i remember correctly DDT was banned due to increased risk of birth defects in animals and humans, and other negatvie enviromental affects. It is also rumored to be linked to an increased risk in cancer according to studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Impact_on_human_h ealth The book Silent spring wirtten by Rachel Carson is widely creditted with the banning of DDT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

A Cure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? I thought Stummies took care of this problem. And remember: when creating new drugs, remember that side effects are okay, so long as there are no flipper babies.

Give me DDT....

[Cryptnotic]

...or give me Death. No, really.

Let me see, something living or something inert...

[hackwrench]

I choose life! And as a bonus, there's genetic improvement! Now when will I be able to improve my own genes?

Wait...

[fak3r]

Where's the Cowboy Neil option?

I don't get it?

[hackwrench]

What are you trying to say exactly? I don't see how your statement correlates with the goal of keeping people from getting sick from malaria.

Interview?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has Jake The Snake been inteviewed yet for this article?

We have something better

[hackwrench]

Mosquitos that are resistant to malaria, meaning that they are no longer carriers of malaria and can no longer spread it to humans, but the Slashdot article was very muddy on that!

Re:We have something better

[RobertLTux]

umm you do know that if you are a carrier of a disease you can pass the disease on even if you don't have the disease (symtoms).
ie you could have a dog infected with "foo plague" and it could be the happiest canine on the planet but infect (sweat, breath, spit - all the way up to blood vectors) every woman he was near.

100 things you should know about DDT

[bill_mcgonigle]

Here's an interesting DDT FAQ entitled 100 things you should know about DDT.

Re:100 things you should know about DDT

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

A very closely related chemical 'Mitotane' is used as an anti-tumor agent.

Re:100 things you should know about DDT

[Watson Ladd]

This site opposes the consensus backed up by evedence that the global mean tempature has been rising due to CO2 concentration rising. I would say that puts their reliability in the toliet. I personaly like to decide things based on facts, but you might not.

Re:100 things you should know about DDT

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude...YOUR atmospheric temperature science is so lousy it's pathetic.

1: Atmospheric WATER VAPOR (H2O) has over 50x the effect on temperature than CO2

2: INSECTS produce more C02 each year than all of man's activities

3: VOLCANOES produce more C02 each year than all of man's activities

4: The PRIMARY control of earth's temperature is the SUN, not the earth's atmospheric content. The sun's output fluctuates constantly, in a chaotic fashion.

5: EVERY single one of the computer models purporting to show that rising C02 levels will cause global warming has....when tested with historical data, predicted HIGHER-THAN-FACTUAL temperatures in the following years, to the extant of over 2 degrees/century rates of error accumulation. ... NOT A SINGLE COMPUTER MODEL that gets historical outcomes right when given historical inputs shows ANY man-made global-warming process.

and last but not least....

6: C02 is a TRAILING INDICATOR of atmospheric temps...which is to say, that, temperature increases CAUSE C02 to rise, ...and NOT the other way around, as the watermelon (Enviro-green on the outside, Marxist red on the inside) crowd would have you believe as they are deliberately LYING about it.

DDT!

[menace3society]

DDT is better! You can't use Malaria for a shell AFAIK.

[Not an original PDP-10 hacker, just a poseur.]

Astroturf

[uncleO]

No discussion of DDT would be complete without a link to Tim Lambert's DDT page.

Dr. Lambert has made a hobby of following DDT opponents' crazy theories, as well as the anti-global-warming crowd, and the Big Money that makes both possible. For a compact overview of DDT falsehoods, check out DDT ban myth bingo.

Re:Astroturf

[tehcyder]

Oh boo hoo, the impoverished chemical companies don't stand a chance against those multi-billionaire environmentalists do they?

Spiked-online = dodgy quote?!?

[wall0159]

Your quote says this:

"DeWitt reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT"

and then, one sentance later, this:

"DeWitt's report that DDT-fed pheasants hatched about 50 percent more eggs than 'control' pheasants."

Now, I don't know who DeWitt is, and I don't claim to be knowledgable about DDT, but these sound like contradictory statements to me!

Maybe spiked-online and/or DeWitt have a vested interest in DDT...

Re:Spiked-online = dodgy quote?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

DDE at the very least kills off aquatic life and prevents the reproduction of raptors. When DDT stopped being used to spray everything in the U.S. the bald eagle population promptly rebounded to an extent that there is now an overabundance of them. In especially high concentrations it has been shown that there is a correlation with various cancers as well as a reduction in mental acuity in animal populations. Since DDT and its metabolites are fat-soluble and thus collect in larger concentrations higher up the food chain, widespread misuse of DDT on wildlife will only increase the concentrations in human populations, and produce an artificial reduction on the size of fish capacity. It also encourages pesticide resistence in disease vectors, making the benefits of widespread usage of DDT moot except in short-term applications. Moderate use of DDT would provide efficiency benefits like mitigating damage to the ecosystem and reducing the amount of DDT stored in child-bearing women in the event that it is ever determined that DDT poses a serious health risk to humans.

Re:Spiked-online = dodgy quote?!?

[Convergence]

From the DDT FAQ, a very fascinating read:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 -- 25 years before widespread use of DDT.

[Van Name, WG. 1921. Ecology 2:76]

No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs.

[Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDE residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]

#

        The bald eagle had vanished from New England by 1937.

        [Bent, AC. 1937. Raptorial Birds of America. US National Museum Bull 167:321-349]

#

        After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.

        [Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

Feeding primates more than 33,000 times the average daily human exposure to DDT (as estimated in 1969 and 1972) was "inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates."

[J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1999;125(3-4):219-25]

Re:Spiked-online = dodgy quote?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Steven Milloy is a corporate shill who specializes in finding quacks that support his masters' attempts to sow sufficient doubt in the public's mind about science that they disregard it entirely.

Re:Spiked-online = dodgy quote?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

most likely they dont even care,they represent a interest of larger group which hosts the expenses of their research/propoganda/etc.i.e. who owns newspapers,media,sites. they produce what
their agenda requires.a better example
would be Chinese Xinhua,and "anti-goverment" information,which it will refuse to even consider to publish.

I don't think anyone publishes pro-enviropment articles without serious attachment to the issue,unlike others who work for money.

DDT is poison,there is never been a doubt.They can scream DDT is harmless alltime they like, but try convince them to drink a litre of it,without faking anything.

Re:Spiked-online = dodgy quote?!?

[hey!]

"DeWitt reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT"

This seems to me to be a very poor way to study to enviornmental toxicological effects of DDT, if it is at all what it sounds like. For one thing, DDT does break down in the environment to a number of different but closely related compounds. Furthermore, just because you ingest something doesn't mean it is absorbed in a biologically active form.

Re:Spiked-online = dodgy quote?!?

[Bush Pig]

I'm not going to waste my time looking at anything on Junk Science - the fact that a statement is made on that site is pretty much prima facie evidence that it's a lie.

They used to spray it from trucks

[nizo]

When my mom was a kid, she and her friends used to play in the clouds of DDT spray from DDT trucks. It didn't seem to have much of an impact on her, which amazes me since it can't possibly be good to breath it in right??? Though it might explain quite a bit about me....

Re:They used to spray it from trucks

[MajorDick]

So did I, and I sprayed the hell out of the Chicken coops with it as a kid. Trus me , litterally FOGGING the coops, I can PROMISE there was no adverse effect to egg production or mortality of the brood,

I always as a kid (ddt was banned many years before we stopped using it) I often thoug "Was it the DDT killing off the insects that the smaller birs ate, that the larger birds ate them that caused the decline ?"
Then around the early to mid 1980's I started seeing birds I had never seen, and hawks in quantity, a rare sight in ohio in the 1970's even in a rural area.

I have seen in the last 5 years more Birds of Prey on a SINGLE day than I have my entire childhood.

Must read Crichton's "State of Fear"

[JoeShmoe]

Many of you may scoff at Michael Crichton (or worse, judge him based on the horrible movies that his books become) but you cannot deny that the man takes the time to do real, intensive research when he writes about topic X. His are just about the only works of fiction that have bibliographies longer than many works of fact.

His latest novel, State of Fear, is a perfect example. He takes apart the fearmongering and psuedoscience behind manbearpig...er...global warming, and shows it for what it really is: attention-whoring scientists playing Chicken Little to get the grants that pays their salaries.

DDT is one example of how policies are based on sound bites and not science. Pick any perspective: moral, cost/benefit, safety...the DDT ban was a horrible failure. To quote a section from the novel:


"Banning DDT."
"Argueably the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century. DDT was the best agent against mosquitos and despite the rhetoric there was nothing anywhere neat as good or as safe. Since the ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. All together, the ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler, Ted. And the environmental movement pushed hard for it."
"But DDT was a carcinogen."
"No, it wasn't. And everybody knew it at the time of the ban."
"It was unsafe."
"Actually, it was so safe you could eat it. People did just that for two years in one experiment. After the ban, it was replaced by parathion, which is really unsafe. More than a hundred farm workers died in the months after the DDT ban, because they were unaccustomed to handling really toxic pesticides."

Okay, now the fun part that makes the above passage of "fiction" so scary...the footnotes:

1) Some people put the number closer to 30 million deaths.
2) Full discussion of DDT in Wildavshy, 1994, pp. 55-80
3) Sweeny Committee, 25 April 1972, "DDT is not a carcinogentic hazard to man." Ruckelshaus banned it two months later, saying, DDT "poses a carcinogenic risk" to man. He never read the Sweeney report.
4) Hayes, 1969
5) John Noble Wilford, "Deaths from DDT Successor Stir Concern," New York Times, 21 August 1970, p. 1

However, there is a more sinister side to the story. I can't find any reference at the moment, but I remember finding a website that claimed that DuPont had engineered the DDT ban because they held a patent on DDT and it was about to expire. They also held patents on several DDR replacements. So, with a little bit of lobbying and media frenzy, DuPont was able to ban the use of the cheapest and most effective product, in favor of enriching their own pockets.

And even worse than allowing millions of people to die for profit? DuPont did it again in the 80's when their patent on freon was due to expire. A little more lobbying and media frenzy, and freon was banned and replaced by numerous patented and nowhere near as effective DuPont products. And, millions of people (mostly in Africa and other poor nations) have died from food poisoning or starvation due to the high cost of preserving and transporting perishables under the new freon-free world regieme.

Call me a kook but...read the book. The gift you receive for your $8.99 is your ability to sleep at night knowing that global warming is just about the last thing you need to worry about.

-JoeShmoe
.

Re:Must read Crichton's "State of Fear"

[Anonymous Coward]

"But DDT was a carcinogen."
.
"It was unsafe."

Actually, I think that quote demonstrates the greatest flaw of "State of Fear". The main character's arguments are convincing because the dialogue with other characters is so contrived. DDT is not a problem because of its effect on humans. It's a problem because of the serious damage it does to the ecosystem when applied heavily. By arguing with straw men, Chrichton appears to be "right", while ignoring very really arguments against his position.
This is why you should get your science from scientests, not novelists (even ones that do their homework).

Re:Rachael Carson = Knew what she was talking bout

[pete-classic]

You don't address the Scientific question. This is the first thing I've heard contrary to the "fact" that DDT causes thin shells. If yours is the best defense to this accusation then it must be true.

Or do you just mean to say that faking Scientific results is okay as long as your heart is in the right place?

-Peter

either/or?

[mshurpik]

> DDT or Malaria -- Which is Worse?

I don't think it's a 1:1 comparison. Killing mosquitoes is analagous to killing terrorists...you don't stop them from breeding. A proper mosquito-control regimen involves maintaining healthy (warm summer) climate so dragonflies are healthy and eat the mosquito larvae the moment they pop out of the pond.

You should see a pond with dragonflies hovering...it looks like the Congratulations screen from a videogame. Each dragonfly takes a 10' radius, so a group of them has the whole pond on lockdown.

The effects on wildlife are NOT 'well documented'

[Banner]

There were no scientific studies done, DDT wasn't banned on science at all. For a site that claims to be about technology, the people here at slashdot tend to subscribe to a LOT of JUNK SCIENCE.

Re:The effects on wildlife are NOT 'well documente

[barawn]

There were no scientific studies done,

That's a complete lie.

While some of the claims in Silent Spring are wrong (as are plastered violently over the Web), there are known effects on wildlife.

Read an account from 1959 regarding "Operation Cat-drop". Unless you think all the cats on a portion of the island just coincidentally up and died after the DDT spraying.

But there are studies out there. Just search. The bird stuff was wrong, but DDT is highly toxic to fish and other predators, for instance. Just do a search on Google scholar for "fish toxic DDT" and you'll get a nice large list of articles to read.

The human DDT danger is still debated, mind you. I can point to articles as recent as last year for that.

Organisms mutate...

[Professr3]

So, since mosquitoes will eventually be immune to DDT anyway, I propose that we dedicate funding to creating a new alternative - massive high-powered mosquito shredders, with intake fans. Let's see you mutate out of THIS one.

Link to Harvard about Borneo

[BobPaul]

Found your comment interesting, so I googled it and found this very interesting. Thought others might find it a good summary.

Click on the top link about borneo on this Harvard Page

Re:Link to Harvard about Borneo

[barawn]

Here is another much much more detailed description (down in Malaria control), and here is an eye-witness account from 1959 of the cat drop itself.

Note that the author of the cat drop was a little too dismissive of the dangers of the rats (he seemed to be more concerned by the fact that they were nibbling people's toenails and eating transistor radios) but hey, he's a reporter. Can't blame him for that.

Still, though, I really recommend the Charlotte Pomerantz book. It's a well-written children's book which describes what happened in Borneo in a way to help kids understand.

The one thing I will say (that I've said elsewhere, too) is that I might've been being a bit strong in saying what happened there, but that's mainly because the comments I've seen have been equally strong the other way - as in "DDT doesn't cause any damage to ecosystems." Well, it does. I'm not trying to say DDT shouldn't be used. I'm trying to say DDT isn't hand soap. It isn't manna from heaven. It's an insecticide that, if used improperly, can concentrate lethally in apex predators.

Sterilized Mosquitoes

[Propaganda13]

Has there been successful testing of releasing sterilized male mosquitoes to control their population? I know there were studies proposed, but I don't know if widespread testing was done.

Crichton's State of Confusion

[x1048576]

Because a novel has some footnotes, you think everything in it must be true? Crichton has been taken to pieces by actual scientists for completely screwing up the science in his book. Read what the scientists think of his work here.

As for his DDT stuff -- it's complete rubbish. In the 60s the World Health Organization tried to eradicate malaria by spraying DDT and failed. There are several reasons why it failed, but one of them was the indiscriminate use of DDT in agriculture, which was a very effective of evolving DDT-resistant mosquitoes. DDT is still useful in the areas where the mosquitoes are not resistant and for that you can thank the ban on the agricultural use of DDT. In other words that ban, far from causing 50 million deaths, has saved lives. You can read about the failure of the malaria eradication campaign here.

Re:Crichton's State of Confusion

[JoeShmoe]

So...wait you are saying that it's a good thing to allow mosquitos to live unchecked (thus spreading malaria) because it avoids producing DDT-resistant mosquitos? Sorry to be blunt but, that's perhaps one of the dumbest things I've heard. That's like saying we should have banned penicillin because it would have been better to let bacterial infections run unchecked (thus spreading god-only-knows-what) to avoid creating resistant bacteria. Well, yes, we do have a growing crisis with bateria that are resistant to everything we can throw at them. But to argue that we should have let millions of people die so that we could only postpone, not win, the war is absurd.

You treat the disease with the best tools you have at the time. When they are no longer effective, you hope you have developed stronger tools. I will totally buy the argument that today DDT is ineffective or that it has been historically overused. The same can be said for penicillin. Today it's virtually ineffective, and that's probably because it was handed out like candy for infections that the human body was well able to tolerate.

It's one thing to put DDT in a category of good versus evil because it has benefits but also serious side effect. I mean, if we were talking thalidamide here, then the good just does not outweight the bad. But I haven't seen any evidence about what exactly was "bad" about DDT...and I certainly don't think your argument about resistance qualifies.

Regarding the climate website, I'm more than willing to admit that the issue is hotly contested, seeing as how you can't throw a rock without hitting a "climate expert". But you can't fake history, and the fact is that the scientific community has been handing us apocolyptical predictions for the last hfifty and that the media has been more than happy to sensationalize the issues for ratings (bird flu anyone?). I still laugh when I watch movies/shows from the 60's and early 70's where most of the plotlines deal with global overpopulation and the fact that in a mere 10 or 20 years, there won't be enough room for people to live, enough food to eat, or enough water to drink. And 10 or 20 years from now, we will probably be living in desperate fear of the next Chicken Little, maybe Martian flu or self-aware robots.

-JoeShmoe
.

Re:Crichton's State of Confusion

[x1048576]

No, I'm saying that we shouldn't use it to spray on crops but should only use it to protect people from malaria. That way we slow the development of resistance and make the best use of DDT against malaria. The US ban on DDT in 1972 ONLY banned its use in agriculture. It did not stop it from being used against malaria and in fact made that use more effective. Crichton does not have a clue.

Re:Crichton's State of Confusion

[zimus]

"Because a novel has some footnotes, you think everything in it must be true?"

Just because the footnotes appear in a novel, you think them un-true?

Bad vs Worse

[Enderandrew]

Kids die in droves due to malaria. Honestly, given the choice between possible birth defects and possible cancer versus death, I might go for the former rather than the latter. Mind you, I wouldn't want DDT used under almost any circumstance, but if it saves lives in a country that can't even afford mosquito nets, then so be it. But instead of going with a necessary evil, I challenge the Slashdot readers to do something even better. http://www.unfoundation.org/malaria/ Donate $10, $20 or whatever. Buy some kids some mosquito nets rather than spray then with DDT.

I was wondering...

[zogger]

..when someone would bring this up. Both the nymph stage and the adult stage of dragonflies primarily eat mosquitoes. Along with mosquito eating minnows, it's a great way to let nature balance things out better. There's a few companies out there now that do dragonfly breeding and sales, just so people can have dragon fly ponds, etc. Some municipal areas have tried it on a mass scale as well, introducing thousands of the insects. The deal is, you have to *choose*, you can't both spray or go the dragonfly route, spraying will kill off the dragonflies pretty quickly. The other method I have been reading about is breeding just humongous hordes of sterile male mosquitoes and releasing them en masse in critical areas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4318356.stm

The largest problem with malaria control-treatments for the victims I mean- has been the use of single drugs. WHO has very forcefully and lately gone around the world and REALLY got down on that practice and is advising for the multiple drug approach for treatments.

http://www.who.int/malaria/docs/TreatmentGuideline s2006.pdf

or short version with all the links

http://www.who.int/malaria/

DDR or Malaria, which is worse?

[Cryptnotic]

hmm?

Re:The effects on wildlife are NOT 'well documente

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, the whole geek community has become infected with hyperideological memes. There was a time in my youth when the geek set was really libertarian minded and laughed the junk science and junk politics crowds into oblivion. Now the geeks spew more tinfoil had paranoia and conspiracy bullshit than the wackos and looneys ever did. It's pathetic. I come here just to browse the headlines and visit the links.

Wow hard question...

[sholden]

Oh wait, no it's not. Malaria, obviously.

A Limerick

[Alioth]

This was up in our school's biology lab. I have no idea who the original author is:

A mosquito was heard to complain,
A chemist had poisioned his brain,
The cause of his sorrow
Was 4-4-dichloro
Diphenoltrichloroethane

Crichton's books

[sentientbrendan]

>Many of you may scoff at Michael Crichton (or worse, judge him based on the horrible movies that his
>books become) but you cannot deny that the man takes the time to do real, intensive research when he
>writes about topic X. His are just about the only works of fiction that have bibliographies longer than
>many works of fact

As someone who *has* read many of his books, I can say that although he may do research to get his ideas, the ideas he expresses in his books are mostly psuedoscience. He misrepresents issues to make for a compelling story, and sometimes gets things plain wrong, and I don't fault him for it. He is a science fiction writer, not a science writer.

To the extent that he helps educate about important issues, or emerging technologies, it is because he draws attention to them, and gets them mentioned in the national media. However, you shouldn't take State of Fear as educating you about the global warming issue any more than you should take Jurassic Park as educating you about the ethics of cloning.

You should consider that his book needed a villain, and putting environmentalists in that spot was a nice twist on the usual big oil companies as bad guys theme.

Also, you may enjoy Michael Crichton books, and south park, but that doesn't mean you should abdicate critical thought to them. South park brings up important social issues in their show and a lot of the time I agree with their take on things... but that doesn't mean that I'm going to go around saying that global warming doesn't exist just because they said so. There are better resources online and off that you should actually be using to look into this...

False Dichotomy

[Dr. GeneMachine]

It is not like DDT is the only available pesticide - perhaps we chose on that doesn't tend to accumulate in the food chain this time? An interesting approach would be the use of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis, a bacterium that is highly toxic for mosquito larvae. It is harmless to basically everything else, except for some kinds of insects, and has been used succesfully against other insect infestations. It can be aerosolized and sprayed just like a chemical pesticide.

Then there is Methoprene - a compound that is similar to an insect growth hormone. It targets specifically insect larvae and prevents them from reaching their next stage of development. Again, it can be used like any conventional insecticide, does not accumulate and is easily biodegradable and non-toxic to anything but insects. Has been successful in trials against mosquitoes as well.

So, why DDT?

Re:False Dichotomy

[porkchop_d_clown]

Because you can spray it in your house without getting sick.

We aren't talking about using DDT as a wholesale agent-orange-nuke-the-forest type thing. Africans use it in their houses to kill mosquitos because it is much safer than other residential pesticides.

Except, of course, the UN pressures them not to do it on the off chance that bald eagles might visit those houses on their way to their nests in colorado.

Re:False Dichotomy

[jonadab]

> It is not like DDT is the only available pesticide

It's cheap. You get a lot of bang for your buck with DDT. Since African governments tend to want to limit their spending for public services (such as public health, highways, and education) to approximately nothing, DDT tends to be attractive to them. If you want them to use something else, the western world probably has to pick up the bill.

Re:False Dichotomy

[hey!]

Methoprene (commerical name: Altosid) and BTI and B. sphaericus are all very effective larvicides. The problem is you can't solve the Malaria problem with them, because you can't find all the habitat, and if you could you couldn't get to it fast enough, and if you could get to it fast enough you couldn't afford to treat all of it with these materials.

Example: some mosquitoes breed in containers. Their reproductive strategy is to lay their eggs some place where they will be wetted after a rain, thus ensuring water to develop in, and other mosquitoes to breed with when then larvae emerge as adults. Imagine trying to treat every place that catches water during the rainy season in the tropics. Some species will breed in animal hoofprints, which tend to have a rich organic muck to provide food.

I'm not that familiar with Anopheles, but my understanding is that some Anopheles species can pupate in as little as four days at temperatures commonly found in the tropics. Since you can't use a stomach toxin on late instar larvae (they stop feeding), you have probably three days after a rainfall to treat everything everywhere. Then it rains again and washes your material away.

Any approach to eradicating Malaria has to have a variety of approaches, and it is possible that in some unusual situations methoprene or BTI might be helpful. Yet experts I've talked to are not very optimistic that larviciding is even useful at all in the overal Malaria effort. I've specifically asked this, because in temperate climates larval control can actually be more cost effective.

Re:False Dichotomy

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, you have never lived in an African country.

Re:False Dichotomy

[Anonymous Coward]

It must hurt to be so chronically ignorant of reality. You better get another Cato injection before you learn something.

Re:False Dichotomy

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure that spraying [?] a place with a living organism that has the capacity to reproduce and mutate is a better idea that just peppering the place with chemicals that will, in a few generations, be essentally washed out? (Washed out, yes, but it'll still leave a pile of dead bodies in its wake and possibly shift the ecosystem.)

Re:The effects on wildlife are NOT 'well documente

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow what a coincidence, the Junk Science crowd are Libertarians. The whole thing was started by Philip Morris to discredit scientific government agencies. They wanted a broad-spectrum attack on these organizations so they whored themselves to industries that created a lot of pollution that wanted people to think, hey it's ok that big businesses are polluting the environment.

Malaria vs ddt

[linuxgnuru]

Where considering I am currently living in Tanzania helping installing Linux servers for rural ISPs, after only 3 months I have seen 14 people die from Malaria. For these people, they live day to day and do not think of the future. So for them, using DDT as a right now treatment vs possible cancer many years from now, there is no debate.

Re:Malaria vs ddt

[Assassin bug]

I love Tanzania, I have a friend in Arusha. I understand what you are saying. My question, expectedly, lit a fire under some people. This was exactly the response I was planning for. I think it is all too easy for the "western world" to forget about what diseases have the greatest toll on our world's population and cause us the most collective misery. With the Tanzanian government seeming unsure about what to do and how to proceed, I was thinking it might be healthy to stir up debate (as best as I can) and maybe get some people who care to act. I am more than willing to take the punches if it does nothing more than improves an awareness of the issue. Seemed worth a try.

Don't be astroturfed: DDT is not banned

[Nick Barnes]

Widespread use of DDT for crop-spraying has lead to DDT-resistant mosquitos in many parts of the world. Despite this, and despite some other adverse effects, DDT is not banned. DDT is recommended by the WHO for residual indoor spraying as part of an anti-malaria campaign. Governments and NGOs fund residual indoor DDT spraying programs in many countries. However, for saving lives, DDT is far less effective than treated bed-nets, and each is less effective than an integrated anti-malaria campaign.

For reasons best known to themselves, some parts of the blogosphere have taken up the meme "By banning DDT, environmentalists have caused the deaths of millions of people from malaria." Almost every aspect of this meme is false, as anyone can discover with a small amount of Googling. I can even save you the small amount of Googling by pointing you to Deltoid, the blog of someone who has done it for you. The "Rachel Carson was worse than Stalin" notion seems to have been started as an astroturf lobbying operation by DDT manfacturers, and spread by dittoheads. Some wingnut sites have counters suggesting that the death-toll is even billions, which just goes to show how innumerate some people are.

old news

[argStyopa]

The "DDT is dangerous" has been conclusively and comprehensively DEBUNKED years and years ago. There is NO reason this crap needs to continue, except for the psychological agenda of the enviro-facist movement.

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

Basically, 'Silent Spring' was based on test data that was wrong.
The birds whose eggs were shattering, had been raised on a diet containing less than 20% of the calcium they usually got. Duh. Low calcium = weak eggshells.
When the experiment was repeated with a proper diet, there was NO such finding, even in birds HEAVILY fed DDT.
Even the original authors of the experiment had, by 1971, turned their investigations more to PCBs, and discounted DDT as an issue with bird populations.

An administrative Judge ruled even at the time that DDT wasn't dangerous.
Nevertheless, the administrator of the then-new EPA ruled it would be universally banned...and then promptly went to work for the exact same anti-DDT enironmental lobbying group, after he left he EPA.

But I find that DNR staff, ecological speakers visiting schools, reporters, etc all have cheerfully and unquestioningly swallowed the Kool Aide on this because of its SEMINAL impact and justification of the environmental movement. To be fair, when confronted constructively about it, are rather shocked but eventually persuaded that there MIGHT be some doubt...which is a lot when you're attacking such a sacred cow. However, I have yet to see anyone subsequently change their presentation, curricula, or (effectively) beliefs.

Question that DDT might not be dangerous? That might make people wonder about the validity of the whole "movement", if they could be shown to be such easily-gulled rubes.

Heck, it might even make you think global warming is BS...but no, that MUST be true, right? Scientists say it is.

Re:old news

[Anonymous Coward]

Steven Milloy sure ate your brain. He basically has his hand right up your ass, and truth be told it's really funny to see when people are brainwashed that thoroughly. Maybe you should consider educating yourself on the subject from a source other than an industry shill--that is if you have any semblance of intellectual honesty and aren't just interested in masturbating your own political beliefs. Tim Lambert's page will give you a good basis for finding resources if you can't look for scholarly work yourself.

That is, assuming that you aren't just a paid shill of Citizens for the Integrity of Science. You know, the new name for TASSC that Steven Milloy started using after TASSC was shown to be a propaganda outlet for the tobacco company to discredit governmental science organizations. You know, the sort of people that believe scientific discourse ended with Silent Spring.

Re:old news

[justins]

But I find that DNR staff, ecological speakers visiting schools, reporters, etc all have cheerfully and unquestioningly swallowed the Kool Aide on this because of its SEMINAL impact and justification of the environmental movement. To be fair, when confronted constructively about it, are rather shocked but eventually persuaded that there MIGHT be some doubt...which is a lot when you're attacking such a sacred cow. However, I have yet to see anyone subsequently change their presentation, curricula, or (effectively) beliefs.

I read an article in Scientific American about 9 years ago which put forward the idea that using DDT would be better than the alternative in Africa. I don't think it's that the idea is really fringe, I think it's that the people who control the purse strings haven't been convinced this is the way to go yet. I'm not sure how the politics plays out but that might mean "the American voter" has yet to be convinced.

I think the problem is that

[porkchop_d_clown]

wholesale area spraying of DDT is inappropriate, but the Africans, IIRC, use it as a household spray so that there isn't the same kind of accumulation of the stuff in the food chain.

Re:I think the problem is that

[barawn]

Right. Unfortunately, the main benefit of DDT was that it was effective on a large scale, and so it could be used for mass spraying to essentially eradicate the mosquito population. On a smaller scale, it's not exactly cost-effective.

See this paper on a cost comparison between DDT and insecticide-treated nets.

Nice strawman.

[porkchop_d_clown]

What does it have to do with whether or not DDT causes eggshell thinning?

Re:Nice strawman.

[barawn]

It doesn't.

It has to do with whether or not DDT causes environmental damage, and whether or not DDT should be used to fight malaria. Which is, y'know, the topic being discussed.

Just because some of the main reasons to ban DDT were bogus doesn't mean that it's as safe as hand soap.

You sure like to repeat that story over and over

[porkchop_d_clown]

even when it isn't even remotely relevant to the topic at hand.

What a load of BS

[FhnuZoag]

"Argueably the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century. DDT was the best agent against mosquitos and despite the rhetoric there was nothing anywhere neat as good or as safe. Since the ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. All together, the ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler, Ted. And the environmental movement pushed hard for it."

Things to note: The statement doesn't mentioned how many people died per year without DDT. It doesn't mention any other effects.

Something about correlation != causation comes to mind...

The same choice as always

[ArcherB]

The choice for this is the same as any other environmental question:
What is more important, human life or wild life?

Re:The same choice as always

[Ihlosi]

The choice for this is the same as any other environmental question:
What is more important, human life or wild life?

More often than not (though not in this case), the question is "What is more important, human (profit/convenience) or wildlife?"

In this case, the fundamental question would be "What is more important, a quick fix for the malaria problem or not having to deal with potential side effects of DDT?"

The stuff is an endocrine disruptor - it and its metabolites are antiandrogenic and have estrogen-like effects on mammals.

Re:The same choice as always

[ArcherB]

In this case, the fundamental question would be "What is more important, a quick fix for the malaria problem or not having to deal with potential side effects of DDT?"

The stuff is an endocrine disruptor - it and its metabolites are antiandrogenic and have estrogen-like effects on mammals.

OK, but is that worth the one million or so people, mostly children, who die of malaria each year? According to the CDC:

Malaria is a leading cause of death and disease worldwide, especially in developing countries. Most deaths occur in young children. For example, in Africa, a child dies from malaria every 30 seconds. Because malaria causes so much illness and death, the disease is a great drain on many national economies. Since many countries with malaria are already among the poorer nations, the disease maintains a vicious cycle of disease and poverty.

Malaria has been around longer than I have been. It seems that this quick fix may be all we have for years to come.

Re:Rachael Carson = Knew what she was talking bout

[Retric]

Read: http://www.reason.com/rb/rb010704.shtml for a simplified history on the subject.

This is the first thing I've heard contrary to the "fact" that DDT causes thin shells.

It's not a question of ALL birds it about a small number of sensitive species.

"Anderson notes that DDT and DDE levels in nature have been falling for decades. Populations of bald eagles, peregrine falcons, ospreys, and brown pelicans have all bounced back. In 1969, researchers reported finding total DDT accumulations ranging from 5,000 ppm to 2,600 ppm in the fat of North American peregrine falcons. Today, one would typically find 50 ppm in raptors, according to Anderson. Such body burdens would yield only about 2.5 ppm in eggs. Anderson notes that there appears to be a threshold of one to three ppm for DDE in eggs below which there is no eggshell thinning in even sensitive bird species. Dusting DDT on the walls of houses in developing countries to control for mosquitoes seems unlikely to cross that threshold for birds.

Banning DDT saved thousands of raptors over the past 30 years, but outright bans and misguided fears about the pesticide cost the lives of millions of people who died of insect-borne diseases like malaria. The 500 million people who come down with malaria every year might well wonder what authoritarian made that decision."

Thousands of raptors should read 100's of thousands perhaps millions vs "Malaria afflicts between 300 million and 500 million people every year" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT) but I still agree with his conclusion. We should limit DDT's use and avoid wide spread spraying but it's fine in limited areas.

SKEETERS!

[lpcustom]

When huntin Skeeters use a Skeeter Trap!

DDT or Malaria?

[hey!]

This is known in reasoning circles as a "false dilemma".

DDT is very cheap and effective in the spot you're applying it to. And therein lies the problem: it's almost too good. The step from using it where it is effective and safe to using where it has unwanted side effects has historically proven to be very short.

Lacking DDT, the industry has had to develop alternative approaches, such as IPM, which are more information and biology centric, and new materials which are more narrowly targetted and which break down in the environment in a more benign way. This requires more up front effort and investment, but in the end is probably more effective.

Consider one common traditional use of DDT: Fogging to kill adult mosquito populations. The mosquito has to encounter the DDT on the wing or land in a place where there was residual toxic effect. Since the mosquito could be literally anywhere, this means you must saturate an entire area surrounding human habitations by fogging it. In the old days, you waited for a nuisance problem or a disease outbreak, and then fogged everything you could reach and hoped you were in time to stop human transmission. I've talked to public health researchers who believe that most such efforts tend to be undertaken after the actual problem has past. Or if you were proctive, you might try to treat preventatively, killing not only mosquitoes (you never get them all), but beneficial insects as well.

Today, if you can manage it, you find the aquatic habitat in which mosquito larvae hatch and develop, and if you can't drain it (e.g. artificial containers like abandoned machinery), you treat it with a narrowly targeted larvicidal material. BTI and Baccillus sphaericus for example, are endotoxic crystals that only act in aquatic larvae with high pH guts -- midges and mosquitoes mainly. If the mosquitoes have pupated, you treat with a material which forms a film on the water, blocking their breathing tubes; in the old days we used diesel oil, now we have specially formulated oils and even alcohols that form monomolecular films.

However, this involves knowing where the habitat is, which is information-centric problem. You need trained inspectors in the field who know what to look for and what to use. Even fogging operations are much more sophisticated; you don't just spray and pray. You have a trapping program to monitor adult populations so you don't end up fogging the wrong places. The technology involved for trapping is mostly rudimentary , but you need trained users who can sort and identify mosquitoes by species. Not all mosquitoes bite people or carry disease after all. Furthermore you'd be surprised how many untrained people mistake other insects such as crane flies for mosquitoes.

But it remains thrue, for the developed world Information + Biological Knowledge + Specific action pesticides = Control with fewer side effects.

With respect to human and animal health, there is little threat to human health from direct exposure to DDT in the concenrations that are effective. The established problem with DDT is bioaccumulation: the concentrations of DDT and chemical products of DDT break down are amplified as they go up the food chain. In certain key applications, such as house interior treatments, this is not a concern however, so it should be possible to use DDT this way.

In places like Africa, DDT used in domestic treatments would be a tremendous boon. The forms of Malaria that infect humans, unlike many other mosquito borne diseases such as the various encephalitis agents, don't have a natural animal reservoir. It spreads from person to person. Personally, I can imagine Malaria being eradicated, like smallpox, and domestic DDT treatments could play a part in this, if its use could be monitored and controlled.

I've been involved with equipping teams to go to Africa for malaria surveillance and for house treatments. One of the problems you face is that in many poor areas, theft is rife. I've had guys tell me they have

Re:DDT or Malaria?

[JohnsonJohnson]

Mostly correct, except you forgot to mention that DDT is actually in use in malaria prevention right now in 22 countries. Most of these countries are in Africa, but I'd appreciate it if you'd attempt to distinguish between individual countries and the second largest continent on the planet, since malaria is simply not a big problem in large areas of Africa such as Algeria (11th largest country by area in the world). And to the Steve Milloy fans, fears of creating DDT resistant strains of mosquitos are not unfounded, it's already happened. In short DDT is being used sensibly where appopriate by the people who are actually running malaria combatting programs (unlike Mr. Milloy) and not being used in areas where it's known to be ineffective, like Sri Lanka and increasingly India.

Re:DDT or Malaria?

[hey!]

distinguish between individual countries and the second largest continent on the planet,

Well, I can only speak of only a handful of countries in Africa in any case, mostly through people I know who are working in vector borne disease control. My expertise is more with viral stuff in temperate regions.

Re:DDT or Malaria?

[Assassin bug]

Thank you for your detailed response. However, I'm not sure you address the question that I posed in full, "What is the Slashdot community's opinion regarding the use of DDT for mosquito control versus genetically modified mosquitoes?"" Unfortunately, I think my title was a little too attention-getting for its own good and seemed to derail the discussion into the pros and cons of DDT with almost no attention being given to mutant mosquitoes vs DDT. Poor wording on my part. Although it is interesting to me that you consider "use DDT or have malaria" a false dilemma. It's true that from a scientific perspective it is a false dilemma. However, this is precisely the dilemma that Tanzania seems to be wrapped up in. Or at least some officials within their government consider it a true dilemma. I mean, it isn't like they changed its usage label, they have moved it from a banned substance and then reversed their earlier decision. Why? Are the other methods not working without it?

Re:You sure like to repeat that story over and ove

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? How is that not relevant? The DDT killed a large number of cats, causing the rat population to grow, the rats brought with them the fleas that carry the plague.

Oh, I see, it's not "relevant" because you wish it wasn't true.

Re:Rachael Carson = Knew what she was talking bout

[R2.0]

"Or do you just mean to say that faking Scientific results is okay as long as your heart is in the right place?"

Google on "bone marrow transplant breast cancer faked study"

Yes, it's perfectly acceptable until you get caught.

I know this one!

[g1zmo]

Is this like the vi or emacs question?

The real reson they banned DDT...

[elhaf]

it kills termites. No profit in that.
1. Keep termites alive, but at bay.
2. Lather, rinse, repeat.
3. ????
4. Profit!
<tinfoil off>

MOD PARENT UP

[wmshub]

Why so much DDT love here? The parent has a link to good info:
    - DDT does kill mosquitos, and is being used appropriately already.
    - Doing more DDT spraying is not the best way to crontrol malaria
    - Yes, the hazards to the environment are real

Re:The effects on wildlife are NOT 'well documente

[Banner]

Interesting story -however- there is no factual evidence that the DDT killed the Cats. Suspicion does NOT fact make! Nor is it science. In fact, it's just hearsay.

Re:The effects on wildlife are NOT 'well documente

[barawn]

Interesting story -however- there is no factual evidence that the DDT killed the Cats.

What, you think that the cats just up and spontaneously died afterwards? Well, it could've been the dieldrin, but cats died in both locations (both are toxic to animals).

Anyway. Here is a more technical description of the incident.

What's mildly disturbing is that since then, there have been numerous claims that "oh, this is apocryphal" or "the air drop didn't happen", "it was dieldrin, not DDT" etc. but note that the above article has detailed information from the WHO, and links to an eye-witness account of the air drops. It was dieldrin and DDT, and

Hey, if nothing else: DDT was directly responsible for roof collapses in Borneo. Dieldrin actually helped the roofs because the parasites died from it, whereas they avoided the DDT. Lack of predators in the area boosted them, and there were measured higher percentages of larvae in DDT areas.

Re:The effects on wildlife are NOT 'well documente

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice I didn't capitalize "libertarian".

"libertarian minded" does not imply membership in the Libertarian Party.

You're just typical numbnut monochromatically seeing slashdotter.

DDT == birth defects and prem. births in humans.

[sudog]

Male "occupational" exposure to DDT causes birth defects in their children.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2004/6759/abstract.h tml

http://www.birthdefects.org/archives/News_aug01.ht m

Repeat: SLASHDOT IS NOT A SCIENTIST HANGOUT

[sudog]

All these people who think that Googling for facts makes them experts are fools. If you think you're getting *any* useful or intelligent, verifiable answers out of any of these people (including me) then you deserve what you get when you listen to them.

The same goddamn thing happens every time someone pulls out an Ask Slashdot where medical advice or scientific debate is requested. For eye treatments, for pesticide discussions, for disease treatments, this site is so full of armchair wannabe scientists whose opinions are based on five minutes of Googling for specific terms like (DDT "no environmental impact").

It's pointless, it's fruitless, and ultimately it's harmful to readers who might otherwise be swayed by posts in the comments here.

Why do you keep doing this, Slashdot editors? Why do you keep posting this drivel? Nothing good comes of it!

Cripes..

Re:Repeat: SLASHDOT IS NOT A SCIENTIST HANGOUT

[Assassin bug]

Man... It was just a question. And, I thought, a timely one at that. By the way I'm an entomologist and I'm interested in what these readers think and less about what their opinion is.

Re:The effects on wildlife are NOT 'well documente

[HardCase]

Hey, if nothing else: DDT was directly responsible for roof collapses in Borneo.

Actually, DDT was indirectly responsible for the roof collapses. The IUCN link that you provided suggests that poor preparation of the thatch, leading to vulnerability to parasites was the direct cause of the roof collapses. DDT was just the catalyst.

I think that the report also draws the conclusion that the unintended consequences of the spraying were relatively minor compared to the benefits. Of course, if it was my roof sitting on my floor, I might think differently.

I do have to say, though, that the cat drop thing really paints a funny picture in my mind. I know that they were dropped in containers, but I can't help but think of a million little kitties, each with his own parachute, gently drifting to the ground to land gently on (of course) all four feet.

I'm glad it's Friday.

-h-

Re:DDT == birth defects and prem. births in humans

[Seraphim1982]

From one of your links:
The epidemic was detected recently when the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and three other organizations studied stored blood samples from women who had premature or low birth weight babies between 1959 and 1966. Nearly 25% of these mothers had five times as much of a DDT breakdown product in their blood as would be considered normal today.

This statement (and many of the others on that website) looks bad but is completely meaningless. What was the "normal" level back in 1959-1966? If you don't know that, you don't know how these women compared to those who were having successful births.

Poorly chosen title

[szembek]

DDT or Malaria -- Which is Worse?... after reading your biased 'facts to consider' list, I think you meant to say: "DDT or Malaria -- DDT is worse."

If you are going to approach this article as a discussion piece and offer 2 sides, why give a list of facts which bluntly push the reader in a certain direction? Why not add in some Malaria stats like how it causes about 350-500 million infections with humans and approximately 1.3 - 3 million deaths annually. (these numbers might not be accurate, I pulled them from Wikipedia, but you get the point)

Re:Poorly chosen title

[Assassin bug]

Everyone is well aware of the impact malaria has on our planet. Tanzania has been flip-flopping back and forth on whether or not to use DDT even though a lot of their citizens have died and are dying from it. My question and is, "What is the Slashdot community's opinion regarding the use of DDT for mosquito control versus genetically modified mosquitoes?" The bias in my question is more in line with my skeptical feelings toward genetically modified mosquitoes. I probably could have given it a better title. But, frankly, I wasn't too confident that slash was even going to post it. I think, and not too surprisingly, that most readers didn't go past the title. Oh well.

Which is worse? You're kidding, right?

[Guspaz]

DDT is effective, and harmless. There is NO credible scientific evidence that it has ANY effect on humans, OR wildlife. It was banned because of fake research by environmentalists that scared the public, not because anybody had proven anything. A scared public can be pretty persuasive.

So, which is worse, a safe and harmless chemical, or millions of people dying of Malaria? Gee, let me think.

The banning of DDT in areas that need it for disease control is almost criminal, and the banning of it in North America does a great job highlighting ignorance.

Re:The effects on wildlife are NOT 'well documente

[barawn]

Okay, okay, you're right in that it was just a catalyst. Bah. Semantics. It made their roofs collapse faster than they expected.

I think that the report also draws the conclusion that the unintended consequences of the spraying were relatively minor compared to the benefits. Of course, if it was my roof sitting on my floor, I might think differently.

Exactly - and that really was my point. I quoted the farmer's response from the Charlotte Pomerantz book elsewhere, and it's really the most appropriate (but this is Slashdot, and so people automatically assume I'm saying DDT is the devil) - it essentially was "look, don't get us wrong, DDT is great - but next time, guys, could you not kill our cats and knock our roofs down?"

Of course, the other thing to realize is that by not being careful with previous uses of DDT, the locals were really against future spraying. Just blindly using DDT in other areas - like Africa - could lead to the same mentality.

If I really wanted to be against DDT, I'd quote the Corin and Weaver paper from last year showing that DDT may actually cause a significant amount of infant mortality by causing premature births and screwing up lactation periods.

Although, now that I think about it - that actually sounds scarily familiar to the Borneo case, where something that looks like an obvious benefit ends up possibly causing as much harm through indirect means.

Discussion on Jerry Pournelle's blog

[Latent Heat]

There was some talk on these matters over at Jerry Pournelle's Web site. The consensus was that while there is no outright ban on using DDT in the countries outside the U.S. where malaria is endemic for the purposes of controlling mosquitoes, there is a lot of institutional pressure to not use DDT, especially through U.S. funded aid agencies.

Technically, no one is prevented from using DDT, but in practice no one is using DDT (recommended to be sprayed on walls of human dwellings, not only to prevent mosquito from biting you, but to prevent spread of a mosquito biting you if you have malaria). The aid agencies are pushing bed netting for this same purpose and perhaps some other measures.

If we had malaria in the US

[DaveInAustin]

Or in Europe, we would still be spraying DDT all over the place. How did we get rid of malaria in the U.S. (and settle Florida)? If your kid was dying of malaria, you wouldn't think twice about a few soft eggshells.

Re:DDT == birth defects and prem. births in humans

[sudog]

That's one of my links. One.

Any study that finds correlations demands a closer look. Jumping back into DDT usage is probably one of the stupidest things these armchair scientists on Slashdot could be proposing, and quite frankly, they deserve what they get.

Exactly...

[hackwrench]

Normal mosquitos don't come down with the disease, they are just carriers. From what I read, it seemed clear to me that the new mosquitos have something different, such that they can't spread it. The Yahoo article in the original article is dead, but here's a link that's still live: http://www.hmnews.org/article2604.html It says: ...the single-chain antibody blocks both human and chicken malaria parasites from invading mosquitoes.

So, having looked back so that I am sure of what I read, again, the genetically enhances mosquitos aren't carriers.

Elephant repellent fallacy

[tepples]

Wavicle wrote: "The cats were dropped because there was FEAR an outbreak would occur. It didn't."

barawn wrote: "... because they dropped the cats! What am I missing here?"

Have you stocked up on elephant repellent?

Re:Elephant repellent fallacy

[barawn]

The cats were dropped to kill rats. Rats which were already present. Rats which carry plague, typhus, and a slew of other diseases.

The cats killed the rats. Therefore, no plague or typhus.

The cats weren't dropped out of unfounded fear. They were dropped out of very real fear. The outbreak would've happened, had they not stopped it. Why, exactly, do you think the cats were there in the first place?

Re:Elephant repellent fallacy

[tepples]

Rats which were already present.

If this is true, then point taken.

Re:Elephant repellent fallacy

[barawn]

If this is true, then point taken.

Read the eye-witness account I linked to earlier. It's actually hilarious, because it's in typical 1950s style, where the guy clearly doesn't understand how serious the situation is. The rats were chewing on people's toenails, and just completely infesting the towns, but the reporter's main concern is that they're chewing apart transistor radios. He doesn't seem to realize that the rats are far, far worse than just a nuisance.

Nine things you should know about DDT

[Anonymous Coward]

DDT isn't banned; the UN, World Bank, WHO and USAID support its use; other insecticides are cheaper; mosquitoes have already evolved resistance. Conspiracy theories about environazis ("They're coming in their biofuel black helicopters!") are not needed to explain DDT's unpopularity.

http://timlambert.org/2005/12/ddt-ban-myth-bingo/

As for JunkScience.com, note:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkSci ence.com

"Prior to launching the JunkScience.com, Milloy worked for Jim Tozzi's Multinational Business Services, the Philip Morris tobacco company's primary lobbyist in Washington with respect to the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke. He subsequently went to work for The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a Philip Morris front group created by the PR firm of APCO Worldwide."

Go away, troll by proxy: the role of a website like JunkScience.com is to provide a distraction while K Street writes legislation.

Tom

Yes, overpopulation and starvation are GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Choose human life!

Save every fetus, save every old man dying in poverty, save every AIDs victim, save the people starving to death in lands that cannot raise the crops enough to support existing populations, save every potential breeder that is dying today and let them breed, Breed, BREED!!!!

The destiny of this earth is to become a pulsating wall of human flesh. God has ordained this, as it says in the Bible - go ye forth and MULTIPLY!

All other species are UNIMPORTANT - only HUMAN LIFE matters - yummy, soylent green human life!

Choose Republicanism. Choose Jesus. CHOOSE LIFE!!!