If malaria was a problem in my neighborhood, and ddt was the fastest and most effective way to reduce the population of mosquitos, then I might be inclined to vote for spraying ddt in our local environment, although I am not comfortable with using ddt inside the house. Clearly, there are many people living in Africa who are facing a situation where there are no good choices, they must choose the lesser of two evils.

Once again Eric, tons of research is "inconclusive", accordiung to this article, about the adverse affects on HUMANS. Look, it's a pesticide. It's a poison. But, the clear ADVANTAGES outweigh the not-totally-proven disadvantages, by an order of magnitude.

Why can't you admit that one, malaria, is much, much worse than the alternatives, that haven't even been proven to be large problems?

I am for looking for alternatives, but the fact is that DDT is the best way to save lives. If that's what you care about.

Or do most people here just care about PC policies?

...as a layperson,I can only say that ddt is very persistant(Scirus portal) in the environment with increasingly more contaminants ((i.e.)through atmospheric deposition and the new role of emerging nations) yielding eco-toxicological effects on other organisms which may play a key role in this web of life, you know....

Someone needs to perfect (or create?) the mosquito dunks to be effective in aerosol form. Instead of spraying full spectrum insect killers just spray the mosquitoes natural enemy instead, or some such similar method.

... a supplementation to the Scirus site would be to procure USGS (river)water quality publications through your inter-library loan system where upper/lower ranges of contaminants are graphically displayed...( affected by environmental inputs- seasonal fluctuations in riverflow/ turbidity for examples)...but with continued floodplain and wetland development,storm run-off issues,urban development ect...and the absense of perchlorate graphs and its peculiar behaviour), the material may be a bit dated. Should be applied to food chains( more than the bio-indicators of fish),I would think with my flickering light bulb ...

Pickwick, once again, and quite simply, malaria or possible breast cancer at later date? If I'm African, I'd take my chances. You, as many people do, miss the true "Big Picture": death NOW, or possible problems in the future?

If I was dying of malaria in the Sahara, I'd tell you where you could shove your Scirus USGS crap.

AS an aside, we've had several deaths this year from West Nile in North Texas. They are starting to spray nieghborhoods. Think about it. Several DEATHS.

While I want the least toxic method for irradicating mosquitos used, it still has to WORK.

I think people who like to complicate things usually have an agenda.

Or, they simply can't comprehend straight fact and simple choices. Things just HAVE to be more complicated. This is usually the case of most liberal thinkers. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar...

randy,the best we can do as inconsequential laypeople is to put our emotions aside and focus on scientific data...no politics...imo

Here's scientific data: Known deaths per year Malaria: 1 to 1.5 MILLION. Deaths by DDT: ??? (WHO)

As reported, perhaps there will be some linkage to cancer. So far, none PROVEN.

1-1.5 MILLION A YEAR. Proven. What is wrong with your ability to realize the ORDER OF MAGNITUDE difference between DDT problems and Malaria Deaths?

Explain, in any terms, scientific or other, how many people die of DDT use. But give a hard number. And back it up.

A fllowup link. It's a sight that doesn't bend to PC, so I'm sure it will be "Attack the Messenger"....

Here is a link that might be useful: faqs

Randy,
I don't know where you got the 1 to 1.5 million deaths a year figure, from what I've read that is a very conservative number. Our societies spend so much $ to find a cure for HIV/AIDS which kills so few people compared to malaria. But we don't want to put a small amount of $ into anti-malaria programs that are known to work.

VgKg, the wide range spraying of BT could cause the eradication of huge amount of "insects" that have a catepillar stage. The effect of a rational DDT based program would cause less damage. Tom
Tom

Tom Tom, I had heard that there are several strains of BT available for specific pests so I'm not certain that the sketter one would do harm to butterflies, moths, etc? DDT would seem to me to be a full spectrum insecticide killing all species of insects (not just the catepiller related ones) as well as producing colateral damage to non-insects, persistance and accumulation in the envirnoment, and would also have to be applied over the same area as would BT to kill the same amount of sketters.

I dug this info up on the differences of BTs

Some commercially available Bt varieties and target pests:

Bacillus thuringiensis

var. tenebrionis - Colorado potato beetle and elm leaf beetle larvae

var. kurstaki - caterpillars

var. israelensis - mosquito, black fly, and fungus gnat larvae

var. aizawai - wax moth larvae and various caterpillars, especially the diamondback moth caterpillar

vgkg,

those lists aren't meant to be exhaustive, they only describe which insects they control effectively. It says nothing about which, if any, non-target insects the bacteria might affect.

Ryan

Perhaps Ryan, but DDT is a better alternative? We know that DDT is not selective in any sense and goes beyond all insect boundaries. If Tom Tom and others are concerned about butterflies then all stages of developement would be threatened by DDT - The WMD of the insect world.

vgkg,

No, I am saying that the information provided in this thread thus far is insufficient to make an informed decision about which method is superior. I am equally suspicious of the environmental movement and the better living through chemistry crowd, particularly where tax dollars are at stake.

Ryan

vgkg,
well you are right on the types of Bt. I guess if it has to come to choosing between preventing the preventable deaths of millions of people a year vs the ecological damage in an area I'd go with saving the people. If the only effective solution at this time is using DDT than so be it. This seem like one of those "between a rock and a hard place" issues. I don't know if the answer is black and white. But if it is I'd go for saving the people first. There may be a better answer tomorrow but what do we do today? Tom

How about controlling the out-of-control population rates
in Africa?? That would be a good start. The millions dying
each year is nature's way of culling the herd. It may sound
cruel but it is reality. Their reproduction rates are some of
the highest in the world.

randy you continue to deny global warming and then start a thread like this one. YOU are the one who seriously needs to look at the big picture. Are you not aware that mosquitos in africa are now travelling to higher altitudes than ever before because of the increase in temperature and humidity? and have a guess at what can be found at those higher altitudes - thats right, the townships that deliberately settled there because they were previously out of the reach of the mosquitos. and what about children dying of starvation and lack of water? Its because the rivers and lakes in africa are drying up from global warming.

IF YOU were to look at the big picture you would see how it is all related. You claim to care about children in africa and yet deny the underlying causes that are creating these situations and that is the type of attitude that allows these things to continue on. So how much do you really care? sorry but you are part of the problem for these people, you just dont seem to realise it.

Does no one here believe in the cyclic nature of weather? The 1400s were supposedly warmer than today. That was before man's industrial revolution. AS for Africa, MILLIONS died because of inaction on something that was known to WORK.

Not UNPROVEN global warming.

To prove global warming, just record temps. That's all. Compare to 20 years ago. Then, look at the historical record. Is it really outrageously warm? As compared to 1000 years ago? 2 thousand? How about 4 thousand? IF the world is being so adversely impacted by men, then do comparisons.

AS I understand it, the 1400s were warmer. So were other periods in recent history. And, there is a clear pattern of warming and cooling over the centuries and millennia.

Don't get me wrong. Reasonable responses to real problems are fine. Most of what gets proposed is radical, not reasonable.

"To prove global warming, just record temps. That's all. Compare to 20 years ago. Then, look at the historical record. Is it really outrageously warm? As compared to 1000 years ago? 2 thousand?"

great idea, except it's already been done. temperature data has been collected going back 600 000 years, scientists have been collecting this data since the 50s from ice core samples, and the temperature variations and co2 levels ARE outrageously different. why do you think this whole issue came up? no one decided to invent global warming as a theory, it was observed out of the data that was being collected. while you can sit back thinking air temperatures are just a little weird, or there are still snowflakes falling so its all a load of garbage, ocean temperatures ARE rising and that is one of the pivotal things about global warming and how it changes climate, and climates around the world are changing already because of it. If you think this whole thing is unproven, then you dont know the facts

I find it odd that the right wing types who generally support the death penalty and the war in Iraq, and oppose abortion, birth control education, and mass distribution of condoms to prevent AIDS, keep harping that the best solution to keeping more people alive is to spray DDT in Africa. How about fighting poverty, starvation, and war?

There are SO many problems in Africa, it seems freakish that you focus on one that is bad for the environment as being the most important to implement.

If you love life so much, what groups have you been supporting to help the people in Africa? I give money to Habitat for Humanity International, and Women for Women International, which helps women in devasted war torn regions support themselves and their families so they don't starve or lead miserable lives. Also the Carter Center, which works for peace, free elections, and against many diseases like river blindness and distributes mosquito nets (for sleeping) on a mass scale. Doctors without Borders, providing basic medical care for the poor and distressed in many parts of the globe. Also Amnesty International and International Planned Parenthood. They both save people's lives, too. I am also learning about a great group called Water First, which helps drill and repair wells in Africa, so that people have clean drinking water, which prevents a lot of deadly disease.

Are you against the death penalty, and anti-war? I do anti-war stuff from time to time. I am sure war kills more people than malaria, why don't you do something about that? There are so many good causes out there, as an environmentalist I admit I find it hard to get behind DDT. If you want to throw yourself into it, be my guest, but don't expect me to make it a priority. Too many causes, too little time and money. I do what I can, and I think it is more than most people do.

Marcia

DDT is admittedly a really, really unpleasant pesticide and I for one am incredibly glad that it's used so much less in the US as opposed to Africa and other countries... However, in times of desperation- as long as it's used accordingly and intelligently- I think that it should be used to help people survive.

What I wonder about is how much the poorer areas in Africa in particular lead to contamiation of waters, streets, excess germs, blahblahblah... Well, all I'm saying (as one of a larely ignorant mass, here) is that perhaps another good step might be to simply try to clean up the area a little so there's less to spread. Yeah, right, I know, much easier said then done... *Ponders*

I agree with led zep rules. Randy doesn't seem to have come to this site for any reason other than to pick fights with people who care about the environment AND people, even people like Randy. If honest discussion of mosquito and malaria control were the real issue, that would be great, but Randy's posts are aggressive and insulting in nature. What's the language he or she uses: "environmental groups have caused the death of . . .children"; "Scirus USGS crap"; "most people here just care about PC policies." Histrionic baiting. Not really useful.