DDT saves lives -

Opinion Journal ^ | November 9, 2005

[UnklGene]

DDT Saves Lives -

November 8, 2005

It's horrifying enough that malaria -- a preventable and curable disease -- claims one million lives every year and that most victims are Africa's pregnant women and children under five. Compounding this tragedy, however, is the global lobbying effort against the most effective method of combating the mosquito-borne illness: spraying outdoors and inside houses with the insecticide DDT...

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[backhoe]

I most recently covered the subject here:

West Nile Virus- Bring Back DDT?

An older, more general post:

Scams, Scalawags, and an all-too-gullible Public...famous frauds sold to America

[Minus_The_Bear]

How are one American "scientists" findings in Silent Spring forced on the planet not considered imperialism?

[blackie]

DDT ~ Bump!

[GreenFreeper]

Its all fine and good to bring back DDT at some levels but it is NOT the perfectly safe wonder chemical. It can wreak havoc on aquatic organisms and apex predators. Further no pesticide will remain effective for a long period of time. DDT has actually been shown to increase cases of malaria where it was over-used!

"Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria." Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India, Chapin, Georgeanne & Robert Wasserstrom, Nature, Vol. 293, 1981, page 183). I'm sure I'll get attacked, but I'm just being reasonable here. Just because several studies have been frauds does not mean that DDT is safe. DDT should be allowed to be used but the levels need to be controlled- if for nothing else but to slow the chemical arms race. ECO-PING

FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!

[editor-surveyor]

"Draining the swamp" works better.

[GreenFreeper]

"Draining the swamp" works better.

Sure, until flood control problems arise and then you have all kinds of disease problems.

[Carry_Okie]

It can wreak havoc on aquatic organisms and apex predators.

Which, and be specific.

Further no pesticide will remain effective for a long period of time.

True, which is why we need to certify more of them and rotate their use over time with the price including the purchase of contracts for mitigating assets and insurance to manage unanticipated contingencies.

OMG! But that would mean we'd use LESS total pesticide!!!

Precisely, which is why, IMO, none of that has happened.

[GreenFreeper]

Which, and be specific.

I'll just go with amphibians since i have a stack of references handy. This list is just of species which have been known to cause mortality and/or significant hormonal changes in juveniles. Let me know if you want any specific references.

Rana cyanophlyctis
Rana limnocharis
Rana pipiens
Rana catesbeiana
Rana temporaria
Rana clamitans
Pseudacris triseriata
Pseudacris triseriata triseriata
Acris crepitans crepitans
Bufo woodhousei fowleri
Bufo bufo japonicus
Bufo arenarum
Bufo vulgaris formosus
Ambystoma tigrinum

[tubebender]

Thanks for that link...

[Carry_Okie]

This list is just of species which have been known to cause mortality and/or significant hormonal changes in juveniles. Let me know if you want any specific references.

IOW frogs, toads, and salamanders. What I would like to know is the dosage of DDT necessary to see these consequences and how that relates to what we see in common usage.

[KylaStarr]

Would you be so kind, since you seem to have your references handy, as to how much DDT it would take to have an impact on these amphibians?

[KylaStarr]

Ack! Should have read down before posting as you are asking the same questions that I would like answered.

[GreenFreeper]

IOW frogs, toads, and salamanders. What I would like to know is the dosage of DDT necessary to see these consequences and how that relates to what we see in common usage.

Fish and crayfishes are pretty bad as well. I didn't post them because that would require me to look that up, i already have all the herp stuff. Just from scanning the article, the toxic dose is anywhere from 1.0 - 40,000 ug/L. The lower concentrations seem to be linked with developmental problems where the in higher concentrations mortality occurs. I'm not sure what common usage results in concentration wise but I would suspect it would fall within the range noted above.

[GreenFreeper]

if you pick a species off my short list there i'd be happy to list the concentrations. Like I told Carry_okie, the toxic dose seems to have quite a range. For example in Rana temporaria 1 ug/L is enough to cause developmental problems in tadpoles (Cook. 1973. Response of Rana temporaria Tadpoles to pp'-DDT. Copeia 4:647-652). I can't vouch for the credibilty of the paper without reading it more carfully though. In Ambystoma tigrinum (tiger salamanders) 10.0 ug/L cause serious growth problems (Clark et. al. 1998.Interactions of Gonadal Steroids and Pesticides (DDT, DDE) on Gonaduct Growth in Larval Tiger Salamanders, Ambystoma tigrinum).

31,000 ug/L caused mortality in Bufo bufo japonicus (Hashimoto. 1981. Establishment of Bioassay Methods for the Evaluation of Acute Toxicity of Pesticides to Aquatic Organisms.J.Pestic.Sci. 6(2):257-264).

[cogitator]

DDT has actually been shown to increase cases of malaria where it was over-used!

Are you (or does this) refer to the development of DDT resistance in mosquito populations?

I've read quite a bit about DDT as I've participated in various threads on FR about it. Here's a summary of reality:

1. Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" is not the main reason that widespread, indiscriminate DDT use was/is discouraged.

2. There is no worldwide ban on DDT use. DDT, in fact, was exempted from the protocol on organo-chloride pesticides, because it is so useful. The U.S. EPA did ban DDT use in the 1970s. There has been a strong lobbying effort to coerce some countries in Africa not to use DDT and to try alternatives (tying this to development grants). This effort was misguided, was led by radical environmentalists, and probably resulted in a large number of preventable malaria deaths.

3. DDT should not be used widely in outdoor applications. The use of DDT that caused the most problems was agricultural application on fields, not for malarial prevention. Because DDT is a very long-lived chemical in the environment, mosquito resistance did and does result from widespread usage.

4. DDT and other pesticides are most effective for malaria prevention if used on bednets, applied indoors, and on building walls. In fact, this strategy is so effective that if a threshold (about 60%, from memory) of household application is reached, the remaining untreated 40% are essentially protected due to the efficacy of mosquito eradication from the areas that have received DDT application.

5. Related to #4, other pesticides are actually more effective than DDT for bednet application, but are more expensive.

6. DDT buildup in the food chain can affect the eggshell thickness and resultant nesting success of top avian predators. Again, this is due to DDT persistence in the environment.

Bottom line: The effective and proper use of DDT should be part of full-scale anti-malarial program. Ineffective and improper use is not advised.

[GreenFreeper]

Are you (or does this) refer to the development of DDT resistance in mosquito populations?

Yes, that is what I was referring to. Great summary of a lot of the issues surrounding DDT use. I think to many people get caught up in the early misconceptions and flawed reserach about DDT and think it's harmless. Like much of everything in life, modderate is the key. There is a lot of pretty strong evidence out there and given its ability to persist for long periods of time, I think restricted use was well warranted. An outright ban, perhaos not. Thanks for the summary.

[cogitator]

I think too many people get caught up in the early misconceptions and flawed research about DDT and think it's harmless.

That, of course, depends on the definition of "harmless".

[GreenFreeper]

for those interested the EPA has a nice little search engine regarding toxicity...I'll let them explain it:

ECOTOX

The ECOTOX (ECOTOXicology) database provides single chemical toxicity information for aquatic and terrestrial life. ECOTOX is a useful tool for examining impacts of chemicals on the environment. Peer-reviewed literature is the primary source of information encoded in the database. Pertinent information on the species, chemical, test methods, and results presented by the author(s) are abstracted and entered into the database. Another source of test results is independently compiled data files provided by various United States and International government agencies. Prior to using ECOTOX, you should visit the "About ECOTOX/Help" section of this Web Site. In addition, it is recommended that you consult the original scientific paper to ensure an understanding of the context of the data retrieved from the ECOTOX database.

[cogitator]

Y'know, when I tried the WSJ link, I got the main page. So I tried Google News, and I found an article of absolute stunning clarity that describes (much better than I could) the entire malaria issue. I would recommend re-pinging your ping list to read the article. I'd post it all here but I'm not sure of Mail and Guardian copyright issues.

Warning: reading this article will turn your stomach.

How DDT can stop millions of malaria deaths

One horrifying excerpt:

"The obstacles to good malaria control unfortunately do not end there. Big business also plays a distasteful role in this saga. Recently, the Financial Times reported that Gerhard Hesse, business manager for vector control of Bayer Crop Sciences and a board member of the Roll Back Malaria Partnership, wrote an e-mail to various health academics claiming: "We fully support EU to ban [sic] imports of agricultural products from countries using DDT … DDT remains for us a commercial threat [but] mainly a public image threat."

"Bayer produces alternatives to DDT and clearly attempts to direct malaria-control programmes so that they benefit its bottom line. Recently, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated more than $50-million to the Innovative Vector Control Consortium to create new insecticides. Regretfully, the commercial-development arm of the project is none other than Bayer Crop Sciences."

Oh yeah, one other excerpt about that "harmless" aspect:

"Since the EPA banned DDT in agriculture, countless studies have been conducted into the potential impacts of DDT on human health, yet none of them have been able to find any concrete evidence of actual human harm. DDT is remarkably non-toxic to humans; people have tried to commit suicide by eating it and failed miserably. DDT is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which may sound alarming, but is the same classification given to coffee and many other foodstuffs in our daily diet."