Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane Thread; (DDT)
Topic Started: Jun 19 2005, 09:08 PM (288 Views)
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Quote:
 

"In May 1955 the Eighth World Health Assembly adopted a Global Malaria Eradication Campaign based on the widespread use of DDT against mosquitos and of antimalarial drugs to treat malaria and to eliminate the parasite in humans. As a result of the Campaign, malaria was eradicated by 1967 from all developed countries where the disease was endemic and large areas of tropical Asia and Latin America were freed from the risk of infection. The Malaria Eradication Campaign was only launched in three countries of tropical Africa since it was not considered feasible in the others. Despite these achievements, improvements in the malaria situation could not be maintained indefinitely by time-limited, highly prescriptive and centralized programmes."

[Bull World Health Organ 1998;76(1):11-6]



Quote:
 


    Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."

    [Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]






Source



Quote:
 


Some 350 million to 500 million people in more than 100 countries each year catch the deadly disease, which can kill in hours, the World Health Organization and U.N. Children?s Fund said in their World Malaria Report 2005.

Billed as the first global report, it follows a scathing editorial in The Lancet medical journal last month accusing an international partnership of more than 90 organizations and countries of failing to control malaria, saying they may have done more harm than good.

The Roll Back Malaria partnership, which includes the WHO and World Bank, was set up in 1998 to coordinate the fight against the mosquito-borne disease. Its goal is to halve malaria mortality by 2010 and again by 2015.

Africa is the hardest-hit region, with 80 percent of deaths worldwide, the majority south of the Sahara where the most deadly species of the malaria parasite thrives, the report said.

?Malaria remains the infectious disease that takes more lives of children in Africa than any other -- three times as many as HIV infection,? said the new UNICEF executive director Ann Veneman, a former U.S. agriculture secretary.


Source
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
DDT might be banned in Australia and other western industrialised nations because of it toxicity and how it accumulates in the food chain (with diabolical consequences) , it is however widely produced still and used in developing world nations.

One reason why you should be cautious when buying food produced in these nations - ie contamination of these foods by DDT.

You might find Temporal Trends of Contaminants in Biota and Biological Effects interesting. (These refer to DDT and other contaminants.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
No, DDT was banned because of a book, and no actual proof given at the time.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Jun 20 2005, 06:37 AM
No, DDT was banned because of a book, and no actual proof given at the time.



That might be your opinion - that is not necessarily a representation of the facts.

Talking about facts - care to come up with some that support your opinion on this matter ?

From my recallection of the time (if was in highschool then) and remember seeing the local council going around the river suburbs fumigating for mosquitoes in summer, especially in Wallsend, Hexham, Stockton and Warabrook .
At the time - I believe it was political pressure that forced the banning of DDT due to concerns about DDT finding it's way into the foodchain and because birth defects leading to miscarriages were linked with it.

Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) Chemical Program
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

^^^

the link in your post directly above was too general, did not give any evidence.

I'm not saying that DDT is totally safe, but considering that the W.H.O estimates there are up to 2.7 Million deaths a year worldwide due to malaria and that DDT virtually eliminates that threat.

The argument is that 2.7 million VS a much smaller percentage from the effects of DDT, the trouble is links to birth defects or DDT being a carcinogen have not been proven.

And thanks to the UN and the W.H.O, DDT use is not widespread, the EU this year threatened trade sanctions against Uganda for wanting to start up a malaria control program using the stuff.

We are not talking about all countries, only those in the tropics.

I put this thread up cos it shows how extremist enviromentalism in the west can affect society in the developing world.

If malaria was the no. 1 killer of children in the US or AUS, how long do you think it would take our governments to do a backflip on DDT?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
captain_proton_au
Jun 20 2005, 08:19 AM
^^^

the link in your post directly above was too general, did not give any evidence.

I'm not saying that DDT is totally safe, but considering that the W.H.O estimates there are up to 2.7 Million deaths a year worldwide due to malaria and that DDT virtually eliminates that threat.

The argument is that 2.7 million VS a much smaller percentage from the effects of DDT, the trouble is links to birth defects or DDT being a carcinogen have not been proven.

And thanks to the UN and the W.H.O, DDT use is not widespread, the EU this year threatened trade sanctions against Uganda for wanting to start up a malaria control program using the stuff.

We are not talking about all countries, only those in the tropics.

I put this thread up cos it shows how extremist enviromentalism in the west can affect society in the developing world.

If malaria was the no. 1 killer of children in the US or AUS, how long do you think it would take our governments to do a backflip on DDT?

The decision would be unlikely to be reversed. See MSDS for DDT
and
The Impact of Persistent Organic Pesticide Pollutants on Human Health

There are more effective materials which have fewer environmental risks that are used (we have nasty mosquito born pathogens here too , especially in mosquito prone areas ).

Where did you get the comparision figures ? Is there a cost-benefit or risk analysis ?

Mute point if the biological control via the recently discovered fungus proves an effective (and easily deployed by spraying infected areas) mode of decimating the vector.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Jun 20 2005, 06:32 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jun 20 2005, 06:37 AM
No, DDT was banned because of a book, and no actual proof given at the time.



That might be your opinion - that is not necessarily a representation of the facts.

Talking about facts - care to come up with some that support your opinion on this matter ?

From my recallection of the time (if was in highschool then) and remember seeing the local council going around the river suburbs fumigating for mosquitoes in summer, especially in Wallsend, Hexham, Stockton and Warabrook .
At the time - I believe it was political pressure that forced the banning of DDT due to concerns about DDT finding it's way into the foodchain and because birth defects leading to miscarriages were linked with it.

Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) Chemical Program

The book was "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson. In that book, Carson claimed that DDT thinned the shells of eagle eggs.

This is a fact. Like it or not.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

somerled
Jun 20 2005, 10:12 PM

There are more effective materials which have fewer environmental risks that are used (we have nasty mosquito born pathogens here too , especially in mosquito prone areas ).

No, there isnt
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Jun 21 2005, 06:41 AM
somerled
Jun 20 2005, 06:32 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jun 20 2005, 06:37 AM
No, DDT was banned because of a book, and no actual proof given at the time.



That might be your opinion - that is not necessarily a representation of the facts.

Talking about facts - care to come up with some that support your opinion on this matter ?

From my recallection of the time (if was in highschool then) and remember seeing the local council going around the river suburbs fumigating for mosquitoes in summer, especially in Wallsend, Hexham, Stockton and Warabrook .
At the time - I believe it was political pressure that forced the banning of DDT due to concerns about DDT finding it's way into the foodchain and because birth defects leading to miscarriages were linked with it.

Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) Chemical Program

The book was "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson. In that book, Carson claimed that DDT thinned the shells of eagle eggs.

This is a fact. Like it or not.

Quote:
 
Carson cited declines in the number of songbirds due to poisoning as a key piece of evidence.

Six years later came documentation of a more insidious effect of pesticide use. Accumulations of DDE, a compound produced when DDT degrades, were causing reproductive failure in several species of predatory birds, including Peregrine Falcons, Brown Pelicans, Osprey, and Bald Eagles. Not only was DDE toxic to developing embryos, it also caused eggs to be laid with abnormally thin shells. So fragile were the shells that the eggs would easily break under the weight of the adult bird during incubation.


more here if anyone wants to find out more.

Her findings were proven and vindicated , perhaps you have an alternative hypothesis to offer that explained the observations in the above link ?

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

^^^

Why is that link for a google search?

You typed some words into google, paste the link and without reading them somehow that proves your point?????
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Bioaccumlative toxins are a bit different than your regular toxic substances. They're stored in the fat cells of living things and are not passed through the system. The more times an organism is exposed to a bioaccumulative toxin, the more the effects of the toxin accumulate in the system. Not only that, but if a fish with a high amount of bioaccumulative toxins were eaten by another organism, all the bioaccumulative toxins in that fish are now in the animal that ate it. The toxins accumulate in the body until the organism dies. This is true of DDT and PCBs (Poly chlorinated biphynl)

Silent Spring alerted the public to the toxicity of DDT, there had been cases of toxicity but the chemical industry was able to lobby to keep DDT on the market despite the ignorance of the long term effects of DDT on people and animals. Similarly, many other chemicals remian on the market due to industry lobbying without knowing the long term effects or in some cases, even the short term effects of these chemicals on people.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
captain_proton_au
Jun 21 2005, 09:22 AM
^^^

Why is that link for a google search?

You typed some words into google, paste the link and without reading them somehow that proves your point?????

You are welcome to click it to see the links and view as many of them as you like.

On the effectiveness of DDT in vector control - you might find it instructive to conduct a search on the development resistance of vectors to DDT , which has the result that DDT is no longer as effective at vector control as it was in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s because the vectors have evolved resistance to DDT.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

somerled
Jun 21 2005, 10:06 AM

On the effectiveness of DDT in vector control - you might find it instructive to conduct a search on the development resistance of vectors to DDT , which has the result that DDT is no longer as effective at vector control as it was in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s because the vectors have evolved resistance to DDT.

Prove it
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
http://www.nd.edu/~chem191/e2.html

http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/08-03/b...sts-article.htm

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec96...94815.Ag.r.html
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Dr. Noah
Jun 21 2005, 10:25 AM

Errr, well that last link seems to support the case for DDT use.


And the first two only talk about extended exposure to DDT
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Science and Technology · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus