4 ms·

> DDT looked pretty good once upon a time. It looks fantastic today if you have ever had malaria. What is the problem with DDT? It is completely non-toxic to

> DDT looked pretty good once upon a time. It looks fantastic today if you have ever had malaria. What is the problem with DDT? It is completely non-toxic to humans and dirt cheap to make. It depresses birds of prey populations during the malaria eradication process, but that is a pretty small price to pay compared to getting malaria. Sure, it is inappropriate as an agricultural insecticide, but it is perfectly fine as a compound to wage war against malaria. If you could go back to the 1940's, and stop the DDT spraying to save the birds it killed, would you? I am glad our grandparents generation poured oil on wetlands, and gassed DDT all over human populated areas. I'd tell them to do it again.

ced 15y ago
It is completely non-toxic to humans From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_on_human_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_on_human_health: DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the United States National Toxicology Program (NTP)[46] and "moderately hazardous" by the World Health Organization (WHO) The evidence on Wiki is mixed. Maybe it makes sense to use it for malaria, but there are also other solutions that might have better cost/benefit.
nate_meurer 15y ago
> "If you could go back to the 1940's, and stop the DDT spraying to save the birds it killed, would you?" This is a bit of a non-sequitur. The problem was that whole species of raptors were threatened by the widespread use of DDT. Yes it absolutely would have been wise to restrict DDT earlier than they did. Or maybe we Americans just enjoy the thrill of nearly exterminating a species of bird. The result is the same: DDT is now restricted in the U.S., and Americans cope with it just fine. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the struggles of people in tropical third-world countries, who can often do little better than try to save enough money to buy a mosquito net. > "I am glad our grandparents generation poured oil on wetlands" Right, because wetlands don't benefit humans in any way, do they?
- jcampbell1 15y ago
  It has everything to do with the third world. DDT is the cheapest and longest lasting insecticide. Was used to virtually eradicate malaria in China, and is effective in India where it is still used today. What compound do you propose treating those mosquito nets with? I assume it is something more expensive and shorter lasting. Untreated mosquito nets don't work very well, and other chemical treatments only last 3 months, and cost 3x as much. DDT is cheap and lasts a year.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    No, congratulating your grandparents for fogging their streets with pesticide and destroying wetlands has nothing to do with the struggle against malaria in the third world. Americans do NOT suffer the third world's pain of mosquito borne disease. DDT has an important role in mosquito control in poor countries, and a lot of technical effort is being put into helping them to use DDT in a targeted, efficient manner, i.e. in manner different from that for which you congratulate our misinformed grandparents. But perhaps you'd recommend that the third world destroy their wetlands as well (more than they already are). Care to defend that remark, or was that just a cheap drive-by?
    - jcampbell1 15y ago
      I am fine with spraying oil on swamp land to eradicate mosquito born illnesses. I can't tell from your comment if you are aware that malaria used to be a problem in the US. It was, and our grandparent's generation solved it. That is what I am congratulating them for. I have no problem with the third world using the same techniques to eradicate malaria that was used in the US to eradicate malaria.
      - nate_meurer 15y ago
        Yes I can see that. But you don't seem to have thought this through very well. If sprayed promiscuously as the Americans did, how much DDT would even the smallest third world tropical country need to make a dent in malaria rates? How much acreage would have to be oiled (and thus destroyed as a habitat) to do the same? Assuming they could afford it financially, how would they afford the ecological costs? Remember, many of these countries don't have industrialized agriculture to insulate them from damage to native habitats. And forget oiling wetlands -- that's not how the Americans did it. Americans did most of the work by draining wetlands near populated areas. So tell me how that would work in a country like Nigeria? I'll give you a hint if you need one. There are many intelligent ways to fight malaria. Exporting some clumsy, ham-fisted methods that Americans rejected forty years ago is not one of them.
derleth 15y ago
> It looks fantastic today Unless the local mosquito populations are resistant to it, as a lot of them are. That's why it's barely used now. Seems a bit rude to point that out, given how enthusiastic some people are for the substance.

ced 15y ago

It is completely non-toxic to humans From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_on_human_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_on_human_health: DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the United States National Toxicology Program (NTP)[46] and "moderately hazardous" by the World Health Organization (WHO) The evidence on Wiki is mixed. Maybe it makes sense to use it for malaria, but there are also other solutions that might have better cost/benefit.

nate_meurer 15y ago

> "If you could go back to the 1940's, and stop the DDT spraying to save the birds it killed, would you?" This is a bit of a non-sequitur. The problem was that whole species of raptors were threatened by the widespread use of DDT. Yes it absolutely would have been wise to restrict DDT earlier than they did. Or maybe we Americans just enjoy the thrill of nearly exterminating a species of bird. The result is the same: DDT is now restricted in the U.S., and Americans cope with it just fine. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the struggles of people in tropical third-world countries, who can often do little better than try to save enough money to buy a mosquito net. > "I am glad our grandparents generation poured oil on wetlands" Right, because wetlands don't benefit humans in any way, do they?

jcampbell1 15y ago
It has everything to do with the third world. DDT is the cheapest and longest lasting insecticide. Was used to virtually eradicate malaria in China, and is effective in India where it is still used today. What compound do you propose treating those mosquito nets with? I assume it is something more expensive and shorter lasting. Untreated mosquito nets don't work very well, and other chemical treatments only last 3 months, and cost 3x as much. DDT is cheap and lasts a year.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  No, congratulating your grandparents for fogging their streets with pesticide and destroying wetlands has nothing to do with the struggle against malaria in the third world. Americans do NOT suffer the third world's pain of mosquito borne disease. DDT has an important role in mosquito control in poor countries, and a lot of technical effort is being put into helping them to use DDT in a targeted, efficient manner, i.e. in manner different from that for which you congratulate our misinformed grandparents. But perhaps you'd recommend that the third world destroy their wetlands as well (more than they already are). Care to defend that remark, or was that just a cheap drive-by?
  - jcampbell1 15y ago
    I am fine with spraying oil on swamp land to eradicate mosquito born illnesses. I can't tell from your comment if you are aware that malaria used to be a problem in the US. It was, and our grandparent's generation solved it. That is what I am congratulating them for. I have no problem with the third world using the same techniques to eradicate malaria that was used in the US to eradicate malaria.
    - nate_meurer 15y ago
      Yes I can see that. But you don't seem to have thought this through very well. If sprayed promiscuously as the Americans did, how much DDT would even the smallest third world tropical country need to make a dent in malaria rates? How much acreage would have to be oiled (and thus destroyed as a habitat) to do the same? Assuming they could afford it financially, how would they afford the ecological costs? Remember, many of these countries don't have industrialized agriculture to insulate them from damage to native habitats. And forget oiling wetlands -- that's not how the Americans did it. Americans did most of the work by draining wetlands near populated areas. So tell me how that would work in a country like Nigeria? I'll give you a hint if you need one. There are many intelligent ways to fight malaria. Exporting some clumsy, ham-fisted methods that Americans rejected forty years ago is not one of them.

derleth 15y ago

> It looks fantastic today Unless the local mosquito populations are resistant to it, as a lot of them are. That's why it's barely used now. Seems a bit rude to point that out, given how enthusiastic some people are for the substance.