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

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

[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

[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.

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...

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.

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.

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: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.

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.