4 ms·

One of the most important factors in eliminating mosquito vectors in the 40s & 50s was absolutely rampant use of DDT. It remains the most cost effective insect

by obblekk 11y ago

One of the most important factors in eliminating mosquito vectors in the 40s & 50s was absolutely rampant use of DDT. It remains the most cost effective insect killer. Perhaps soon its use in certain areas will be reconsidered.

m_mueller 11y ago
Isn't this just trading with different bad outcomes, e.g. damaging children from DDT in breast milk?
- giggzy 11y ago
  DDT has been demonised with much good cause, predator bird egg fragility leading to extinction and near extinction being a red light of many environmental issues. However, there maybe sensible case for usage of it or analogues that is prevented because of prejudgement. We defend against DDT and ignore names we don't know at all.
Negitivefrags 11y ago
My father likes to tell me how they had DDT sprayed in their hair when he was in school in the 50s to control head lice. When asked what he thinks of this he just says "Well, it killed the lice".
whyenot 11y ago
There are two problems that I have with this romantic view of DDT: 1. Mosquitoes become resistant to DDT over time, as is the case with most pesticides. 2. DDT might possibly be "cost effective" when considering direct costs, When you start factoring in the indirect costs, it doesn't look so good. DDT bio-accumulates and decimated many bird species, including insectivorous birds, the last time it was used. In the intervening years, habitat and bird populations have continued to decline. The cost today, especially to ecosystem services, could be very great.
acdha 11y ago
DDT is still allowed for anti-malaria campaigns but those old approaches aren't used because they don't work: resistance was already recognized as making that approach untenable by the mid-1950s. Even major proponents recognized that they had only a short window for widespread usage before it became ineffective: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02749227?LI=true#page-1 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02749227?LI=tru... “There is an urgency today about malaria eradication. Insects are revealing a disconcerting ability to develop resistance to the new insecticides. For example, houseflies in many areas can no longer be killed with DDT. In a few cases, malaria-type mosquitoes are also resistant. Apparently, it takes six or seven years for the malaria-type mosquitoes of an area under continuous spraying to develop resistance.” WHO's current position allows DDT for disease control – but not agriculture – but it's also with the kind of controls you'd expect to minimize collateral damage and avoid breeding resistant mosquito populations: “WHO recommends DDT only for indoor residual spraying. Countries can use DDT for as long as necessary, in the quantity needed, provided that the guidelines and recommendations of WHO and the Stockholm Convention are all met, and until locally appropriate and cost-effective alternatives are available for a sustainable transition from DDT” http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69945/1/WHO_HTM_GMP_2011_eng.pdf http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69945/1/WHO_HTM_GMP... (Ars had a great Ed Yong piece last year on the history of resistance through the present: http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/a-field-report-from-malarias-cradle-of-drug-resistance/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/a-field-report-from-m...) Interestingly enough, the DDT boosterism of recent years was apparently funded by tobacco companies trying to discredit the public health agencies which are also behind anti-smoking campaigns. A few researchers connected the dots between that campaign and right-wing cash-for-sciency-veneer activists like Steve Milloy and Roger Bate: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcarson http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcar...

by obblekk 11y ago

m_mueller 11y ago

Isn't this just trading with different bad outcomes, e.g. damaging children from DDT in breast milk?

giggzy 11y ago
DDT has been demonised with much good cause, predator bird egg fragility leading to extinction and near extinction being a red light of many environmental issues. However, there maybe sensible case for usage of it or analogues that is prevented because of prejudgement. We defend against DDT and ignore names we don't know at all.

Negitivefrags 11y ago

My father likes to tell me how they had DDT sprayed in their hair when he was in school in the 50s to control head lice. When asked what he thinks of this he just says "Well, it killed the lice".

whyenot 11y ago

There are two problems that I have with this romantic view of DDT: 1. Mosquitoes become resistant to DDT over time, as is the case with most pesticides. 2. DDT might possibly be "cost effective" when considering direct costs, When you start factoring in the indirect costs, it doesn't look so good. DDT bio-accumulates and decimated many bird species, including insectivorous birds, the last time it was used. In the intervening years, habitat and bird populations have continued to decline. The cost today, especially to ecosystem services, could be very great.

acdha 11y ago

DDT is still allowed for anti-malaria campaigns but those old approaches aren't used because they don't work: resistance was already recognized as making that approach untenable by the mid-1950s. Even major proponents recognized that they had only a short window for widespread usage before it became ineffective: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02749227?LI=true#page-1 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02749227?LI=tru... “There is an urgency today about malaria eradication. Insects are revealing a disconcerting ability to develop resistance to the new insecticides. For example, houseflies in many areas can no longer be killed with DDT. In a few cases, malaria-type mosquitoes are also resistant. Apparently, it takes six or seven years for the malaria-type mosquitoes of an area under continuous spraying to develop resistance.” WHO's current position allows DDT for disease control – but not agriculture – but it's also with the kind of controls you'd expect to minimize collateral damage and avoid breeding resistant mosquito populations: “WHO recommends DDT only for indoor residual spraying. Countries can use DDT for as long as necessary, in the quantity needed, provided that the guidelines and recommendations of WHO and the Stockholm Convention are all met, and until locally appropriate and cost-effective alternatives are available for a sustainable transition from DDT” http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69945/1/WHO_HTM_GMP_2011_eng.pdf http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69945/1/WHO_HTM_GMP... (Ars had a great Ed Yong piece last year on the history of resistance through the present: http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/a-field-report-from-malarias-cradle-of-drug-resistance/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/a-field-report-from-m...) Interestingly enough, the DDT boosterism of recent years was apparently funded by tobacco companies trying to discredit the public health agencies which are also behind anti-smoking campaigns. A few researchers connected the dots between that campaign and right-wing cash-for-sciency-veneer activists like Steve Milloy and Roger Bate: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcarson http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcar...