fred
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by fred on Jun 2, 2012 22:03:31 GMT
DDT was working well while used in local spraying of houses. and water. After it was stopped malaria went through the roof again and many have died since. The data about its dangers to wildlife have since been questioned.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 3, 2012 0:24:13 GMT
steve Sing your song to the millions of poor who have died of malaria. Of course you are civilized and live above it all.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 4, 2012 9:32:06 GMT
steve Sing your song to the millions of poor who have died of malaria. Of course you are civilized and live above it all. The weakness of your argument is demonstrated by your immediate descent into personal attack without considering whether you have a balanced knowledge of the subject. I don't believe I've ever attacked you for being a greedy fool who really doesn't give a stuff about the people who will come after you in this world, have I?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 4, 2012 13:11:17 GMT
Sorry previous response did not include links. So steve's defense of the ban seems not founded on fact. Maybe I misread ineffectiveness claim. www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/pubhealth/p8475/readings/ddt_csm.pdfwww.nytimes.com/2002/12/23/opinion/fighting-malaria-with-ddt.htmlwww.pointblanknews.com/Articles/artopn2622.htmlwww.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-09-15-ddt_x.htmwww.malaria.org/DDT_open.htmlFrom the last link "Why do we need to worry about malaria in eliminating DDT? Malaria is responsible for about 500 million clinical cases of disease and about 2.7 million deaths a year, mostly those of children under five and pregnant women. In Sub-Saharan Africa alone, malaria destroys 70% more years of life than do all cancers in all developed countries combined. It therefore follows that even a tiny loss in the efficiency of a national malaria control program, occasioned by the loss of DDT or otherwise, would result in a tremendous number of additional deaths from the disease. Malaria is a serious infection of Plasmodium parasites, which are spread by the bite of Anopheles mosquitoes. For this reason, nearly all malaria control strategies target either the parasite or the mosquito in some way. This is easier said than done. There are no fewer than four species of Plasmodium that infect people, each with thousands of genetic variants, and about thirty-five different species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. It is the complex diversity of the parasites, the mosquitoes, the local ecologies, socio-economic conditions, and human responses to disease that conspire to make malaria notoriously hard to control. As a result, there is no single prescription, not even DDT, which can successfully control malaria in all locales. Yet DDT is still a very useful tool for malaria control in some places. Once or twice a year, DDT is applied to the interior walls only of a house. No spraying is done outdoors. Wall spraying is sufficient because mosquitoes tend to feed at night, when people are also indoors. If a mosquito is "DDT sensitive", the small amount of DDT it absorbs through its feet when it lands on a sprayed wall will kill it within a few minutes. If a mosquito is "DDT resistant", it will not die, but will be irritated by the DDT and fly outside. This irritant effect means that DDT continues to be moderately effective even in locales where DDT resistance is considered widespread. In either case, whether DDT kills or irritates the mosquito, the opportunity for the mosquito to bite a person with malaria and carry the infection to another person is lost. World Health Organization scientists have called indoor house spraying "the most easily applicable large-scale transmission control measure" for malaria. DDT is often the insecticide of choice because it is both very cheap and effective. Data from the Pan-American Health Organization show that where South American countries stopped spraying houses with DDT, their rates of malaria increased, often dramatically. Conversely, the single country to increase DDT house spraying (Ecuador) was also the only one to significantly reduce its rate of malaria (by 61% overall). But leaving aside its effectiveness, what makes DDT attractive is its very low cost. Although exact data on cost per life saved are lacking, there is no doubt that indoor house spraying is among the most cost-effective malaria control strategies. For countries with small health budgets and worsening malaria problems, there may be few, if any, practical alternatives, which may be a reason to immediately increase rather than eliminate DDT use. Thus, any treaty to ban DDT must be weighed very carefully, as against the uncertain cost of other strategies to control malaria, and the loss of human lives if these strategies are too expensive to be implemented."
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 4, 2012 18:31:25 GMT
Very Green and very unethical. "The EPA’s Unethical PM2.5 Air Pollution Experiments" "That same month, September 2011, Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), a journal sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, reported an experiment that exposed a 58-year-old lady to high levels of small particles in a chamber. After 49 minutes in the chamber, the lady, who was obese with hypertension and a family history of heart disease, who also had premature atrial heartbeats on her pre-experiment electrocardiogram, developed a rapid heart beat irregularity called atrial fibrillation/flutter, which can be life threatening. She was taken out of the chamber, and she recovered, but she was hospitalized for a day. Weeks later, an abnormal electrical heart circuit was fixed by cardiologists, as reported in EHP. It is illegal, unethical, and immoral to expose experimental subjects to harmful or lethal toxins. The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd Ed. (2011), published by the Federal Judicial Center, on page 555 declares that exposing human subjects to toxic substances is “proscribed” by law and cites case law. The editor of EHP refused a request to withdraw the paper and conduct an investigation." wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/04/the-epas-unethical-pm2-5-air-pollution-experiments/
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 5, 2012 9:19:07 GMT
2006 (USA Today) = "Expanded indoor use of the pesticide DDT won't harm people or the environment and is critical in the fight against malaria, the World Health Organization said Friday."
Any idea about what happened after this?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 5, 2012 15:54:55 GMT
trbixler,
What ban have I defended?
Your opinion appears to be that many environmentalists want DDT to be totally banned because they care more about polluting the environment than about eradicating or preventing malaria. It's your opinion that I'm challenging.
|
|