1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

DDT OK'd by WHO (again)

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by amped, Sep 22, 2006.

  1. amped

    amped Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    3,892
    694
    0
    Location:
    Columbia River Gorge, Oregon
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    #1 amped, Sep 22, 2006
  2. galaxee

    galaxee mostly benevolent

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    9,810
    465
    0
    Location:
    MD
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    #2 galaxee, Sep 22, 2006
  3. amped

    amped Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    3,892
    694
    0
    Location:
    Columbia River Gorge, Oregon
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    From your link that supports most of the Fox piece, but errs by omission of pertinent facts...

    "We must take a position based on the science and the data," said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”

    “I anticipate that all 15 of the country programs of President Bush’s $1.2 billion commitment to cut malaria deaths in half will include substantial indoor residual spraying activities, including many that will use DDT,” said Admiral R. Timothy Ziemer, Coordinator of the President’s Malaria Initiative. “Because it is relatively inexpensive and very effective, USAID supports the spraying of homes with insecticides as a part of a balanced, comprehensive malaria prevention and treatment program. “

    “Indoor spraying is like providing a huge mosquito net over an entire household for around-the-clock protection,” said U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, a leading advocate for global malaria control efforts. “Finally, with WHO’s unambiguous leadership on the issue, we can put to rest the junk science and myths that have provided aid and comfort to the real enemy – mosquitoes – which threaten the lives of more than 300 million children each year.”
     
    #3 amped, Sep 22, 2006
  4. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    22,154
    11,577
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    There are differences in spot applications and just spraying willy-nilly all over the place. If the bennefits out weight the risks with the former, I'm not to argue.

    If we'd been doing this from the beginning, there'd likely be resistent bugs now.

    From the Fox link:
    Such leaps of concludision give me a chuckle.

    Ooh, here's a thought; won't having all this pesticide lying around in the 3rd world make it easier the terrorists to get and use.
     
    #4 Trollbait, Sep 22, 2006
  5. fshagan

    fshagan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    1,766
    4
    0
    Location:
    Noneofyourbusiness, CA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Sep 22 2006, 09:06 AM) [snapback]323412[/snapback]</div>
    The problem with DDT here where I live was that it made its way into the ocean and the fish, and then the birds (especially the Brown Pelican) ate the fish. The DDT interfered with the production of calcium in the bird's eggs, and the Brown Pelican population declined rapidly. It doesn't break down easily, and is absorbed into the fat of the animal, so it tends to build up. But there is not much immediate danger to humans if a terrorist made a "dirty DDT bomb". You could be sprayed with the stuff without much risk.

    The source of the DDT that caused problems here was not targeted residual spraying as indicated in this article, but wide-scale crop duster spraying as you indicate, but also (and I think most importantly) industrial waste that discharged the chemical directly into the ocean:

    Everything carries risk, but proper application of the chemical could wipe out malaria in our lifetimes. Careful study of the effects on local animals, especially our feathered friends, in the areas where hand-applied sprays are used could help minimize the impact on the environment.
     
    #5 fshagan, Sep 23, 2006
  6. galaxee

    galaxee mostly benevolent

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    9,810
    465
    0
    Location:
    MD
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    the fox article was an opinion piece, and by reading it was intent on swaying you one way or the other. there were not unbiased facts there, they were used in a fashion to attack the counterpoint.

    that "views" article did not make it clear that they're not talking about loading up planes full of the stuff an dumping it all over the countryside, that the only issue being discussed is indoor spraying.

    environmentally, it isn't fantastic. it does have major effects especially on birds, as mentioned above. the fox article would have you believe that it's nearly harmless and that its elimination from use is simply because someone somewhere didn't like it and they had lots of money to spread their opinion around. riiight.
     
    #6 galaxee, Sep 23, 2006
  7. Mirza

    Mirza New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    898
    0
    0
    #7 Mirza, Sep 24, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)