Is DDT dangerous, or was it a fake scare?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's my understanding that pyrethroids are more commonly used these days because mosquito populations quickly become DDT resistant after a few years of use.

Hadn't heard that before...hmm.

[inked]

Resistance does develop to all known compounds over time for organisms in many differing kingdoms, not just mosquitos. That is why the rational use of varying effective pesticides is better than only one. You select for differing genes and not merely a single one or group. Hence, judicious application of agents known to induce resistance must be made in such a fashion as to minimize development of said resistance. Freaking out over a specific agent as though it alone had such problems is not going to correct the problem. This seems to have been realized by the groups formerly known as "concerned". Apparently, for now, the deaths of 3000 kids per day trumps bald eagles - especially since these kids are post utero. But give it time, HB, it could be that global warming is related to DDT in some fashion. Just like the greenhouse effects of methane are linked to ruminants and cow farts (not to mention deer, elk, antelope, and archebacteria such as methanogens).
Give it time.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by inked

Give it time.

How much time can you feed to this monster?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

You really ARE thinking DDT isn't harmful or are you just trying to generate some response by saying something so silly?

Seems to me he's trying to start a good, old-fashioned pro vs. con debate.

This article outlines many of the pros and the cons of DDT. One of the cons is that mosquitos do build up a resistence to it. One of the pros however, is that it was used effectively to combat malaria. (Though if the resistence is widespread, its efficacy would lessen. I think the effect of various insecticides on mosquitos over time should be studied more.)

I agree with Inked that a wider variety of insecticides should be used to help reduce malaria-carrying mosquito populations. However, we should test these insecticides intensively, so that we're not introducing another health hazard that's just as bad as malaria.

Just for fun, here's a list of reasons to like DDT.

[hectorberlioz]

Nurv...I actually am surprised. I thought I was going to be crucified by you...

Not that I was looking forward to it or anything

*clicks on the links Nurv gives*

[Nurvingiel]

Am I too mean to you Hector? *hugs* *gives cookies* Nurvingiel's cookies. Now oregano-free!


I oppose the use of DDT generally, unless it's the only available option to halt the spread of malaria. However, since it does cause environmental problems, it should be a hold-over until a less harmful but equally effective solution can be found.

That's my opinion in a peregrine falcon shell.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Am I too mean to you Hector? *hugs* *gives cookies* Nurvingiel's cookies.

Mmmm

Now oregano-free!

Now WHAT do you have against Oregonians, that you would have used them in your cookie recipe?

I oppose the use of DDT generally, unless it's the only available option to halt the spread of malaria. However, since it does cause environmental problems, it should be a hold-over until a less harmful but equally effective solution can be found.

As does Rachel Carson Wood, by the way.

[inked]

Are Oregonians in favor of DDT in their cookies, too? What is the world coming to? First Rachel Carson, then the Sierra Club and now Nurv!

[Nurvingiel]

The "oregano" was a too-subtle nod at pot cookies.

Originally Posted by inked

Are Oregonians in favor of DDT in their cookies, too? What is the world coming to? First Rachel Carson, then the Sierra Club and now Nurv!

See, us environmentalists aren't unrealistic.

[Earniel]

I happened to cross by this article today, and thought of this debate. Might be an interesting read.

[Nurvingiel]

Very interesting Eärniel!

DDT use has decreased enormously, but not because of a ban. The real reason is simple, although not one conservatives are particularly fond of: evolution. Mosquito populations rapidly develop resistance to DDT, creating enzymes to detoxify it, modifying their nervous systems to avoid its effects, and avoiding areas where DDT is sprayed — and recent research finds that that resistance continues to spread even after DDT spraying has stopped, lowering the effectiveness not only of DDT but also other pesticides (Current Biology, 8/9/05).

Well, crap. I guess we had better get cracking on a better mosquito pesticide eh guys?

And:

And perhaps most importantly, the pro-DDT line is a vast distraction. There are numerous other techniques for dealing with malaria: alternative insecticides, bed nets and a combination of drugs called artemisinin-based combination therapy, or ACT. ACT actually kills the malaria parasite fast, allowing the patient a quick recovery, and has a success rate of 95 percent (World Health Organization, 2001). Rollouts of ACT in other countries have slashed malaria rates by 80 to 97 percent (Washington Monthly, 7/06).

Yes, we definitely need something better than DDT.

In sum: it is dangerous, and it wasn't a fake scare.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I happened to cross by this article today, and thought of this debate. Might be an interesting read.

Although I very much disagree with placing the writer of "Silent Spring" on the same level as mass murderers like Hitler, the article touches upon many significant points. But perhaps most importantly I think it shows that the DDT issue is truly not just black and white. It would seem ignorant to just discuss a global, total ban of DDT or freedom for everyone to use the pesticide.

DDT is indeed a poison that gets more concentrated the higher up it gets in the food-chain. Such accumulations can never be good, no matter the potency of the poison itself. So of course we should avoid using DDT, but should we avoid it at all costs?
There are better alternatives to DDT but however, these alternative pesticides are also more expensive! Poverty is a factor one has to take into consideration. Poor, malaria-ridden countries might not be able to afford other pesticides than DDT. And if there's a global ban of DDT, the people seem doomed to cope with malaria infections. So unless better pesticides get cheaper/subsidized and unless malaria treatment also gets cheaper and more efficient - it won't be morally acceptable to force a prohibition of DDT in these places.

The DDT problem can be attacked from many angles. But that's easier said than done. For instance:
- We can have a total ban on DDT.
- The rich countries can pay the bill for the third world's use of better, more expensive pesticides.
- We can invent cheap, good pesticides.
- We can get better at malaria treatment.
- We can fight poverty.

Perhaps the best thing is to do a bit of everything.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Although I very much disagree with placing the writer of "Silent Spring" on the same level as mass murderers like Hitler, the article touches upon many significant points.

I'm quite certain they were being facetious about that. Put it down to language differences.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

But perhaps most importantly I think it shows that the DDT issue is truly not just black and white. It would seem ignorant to just discuss a global, total ban of DDT or freedom for everyone to use the pesticide.

DDT is indeed a poison that gets more concentrated the higher up it gets in the food-chain. Such accumulations can never be good, no matter the potency of the poison itself. So of course we should avoid using DDT, but should we avoid it at all costs?
There are better alternatives to DDT but however, these alternative pesticides are also more expensive! Poverty is a factor one has to take into consideration. Poor, malaria-ridden countries might not be able to afford other pesticides than DDT. And if there's a global ban of DDT, the people seem doomed to cope with malaria infections. So unless better pesticides get cheaper/subsidized and unless malaria treatment also gets cheaper and more efficient - it won't be morally acceptable to force a prohibition of DDT in these places.

The DDT problem can be attacked from many angles. But that's easier said than done. For instance:
- We can have a total ban on DDT.
- The rich countries can pay the bill for the third world's use of better, more expensive pesticides.
- We can invent cheap, good pesticides.
- We can get better at malaria treatment.
- We can fight poverty.

Perhaps the best thing is to do a bit of everything.

You really hit the nail on the head with this. I think wealthy nations should fund malaria treatment for countries who can't afford to do it. Unfortunately, if those countries have dictators who don't care about the people in charge, then any aid would only find its way into his pockets.