tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556326304729519232.post3141319606383524523..comments2024-03-22T10:01:39.458-04:00Comments on Paradigms and Demographics: Mr President, DDT will end malariaRich Kozlovichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13745960671409518147noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556326304729519232.post-76059910049521804912010-04-25T16:16:50.171-04:002010-04-25T16:16:50.171-04:00Dear Anonymous,
It actually goes far beyond that....Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />It actually goes far beyond that. Those who defend Rachel Carson and her views in Silent Spring know that if it can be shown that the information regarding DDT is false then everything the activists have said since then is called into question. <br /><br />The ban on DDT gave the environmental movement power they had never dreamed possible. It is the basis for everything that has followed. <br /><br />Also I would appreciate everyone not attacking Mr. Darrell. He isn’t permitted to post here and therefore can’t defend himself.<br /><br />Rich K.Rich Kozlovichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13745960671409518147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556326304729519232.post-17371935602073803222010-04-25T15:05:20.996-04:002010-04-25T15:05:20.996-04:00Not that anyone seems to care, but people like Ed ...Not that anyone seems to care, but people like Ed Darrell are the problem period. They worry more about DDT thyan you know.It WAS the main reason malaria was wiped out in the western world. The inventor won a noble peace prise for the formula.It saved numerous lives in WWII.<br /><br />The only reason his ilk cares about DDT is that it is what their masaih Rachel Carson lamented over in her JUNK SCIENCE fiction book in 1962 called Sielnt Spring. <br /><br />To discredit her beliefs ,that DDT is BAD BAD BAD ,would dengraate Rachel Carson and mer message.<br /><br />Gaia great,people who gives a damn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556326304729519232.post-40840178459942313352009-02-07T10:29:00.000-05:002009-02-07T10:29:00.000-05:00Everything you have said here and in the past is n...Everything you have said here and in the past is nonsense and misinformation.Rich Kozlovichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13745960671409518147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556326304729519232.post-22989958332052375442009-02-07T09:45:00.000-05:002009-02-07T09:45:00.000-05:00P.S. -- I have a number of posts on the campaigns ...P.S. -- I have a number of posts on the campaigns against malaria, and DDT, over at my blog, Millard Fillmore's Bathtub. If you want to research the issues, my posts have links to take you to the sources.<BR/><BR/>www.timpanogos.wordpress.comEd Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556326304729519232.post-49555013019532847842009-02-07T09:42:00.000-05:002009-02-07T09:42:00.000-05:00Is this a letter to the president of Uganda? It m...Is this a letter to the president of Uganda? It might have been useful to George Bush, whose administration steadfastly refused to allow U.S. money to be spent for tiny amounts of DDT for indoor residual spraying, but oddly, and irrationally, also refused to allow U.S. money to be spent for bednets (which are more effective than DDT, for longer, and much cheaper than DDT) -- but overall, it's a minor issue.<BR/><BR/>DDT can't save Uganda from malaria, and Ugandans oppose it. Programs to do environmentally responsible, indoor residual spraying (IRS) with DDT ran into a buzz saw of opposition from Ugandan exporters, and cotton and coffee farmers. Go figure. Environmental groups, such as the U.S.-based Environmental Defense, approved this limited use of DDT. ED was the first organization in the world to oppose the broadcast spraying of DDT. ED was right, then. Broadcast spraying of DDT rendered very much useless against malaria-carrying mosquitoes. <BR/><BR/>Ridiculous claims are constantly being made by the Poison Africa crowd, including claims that DDT cured the developed world of malaria (it didn't -- wealth did; in the U.S., malaria was pretty much wiped out by 1939, though DDT wasn't used against mosquitoes until 1946). <BR/><BR/>Another ridiculous claim is that DDT is almost harmless. It is true that DDT is only a weak carcinogen in the first generation -- you probably won't get cancer from being exposed to DDT, but if you have children after exposure, they have a significantly elevated risk of cancers. But it is absolutely false that DDT is not dangerous in the wild. It wipes out entire ecosystems. Much of the opposition to DDT in Africa comes from people who remember when DDT sprayed to kill mosquitoes also killed all the fish in the streams and rivers. Starvation isn't a disease, but it's just as deadly as malaria. They don't want to swap one horror story for another.<BR/><BR/>There is no study ever done which suggests DDT is anything other than a very dangerous poison to wildlife. How someone could claim that it's not dangerous is beyond me. We have more than 60 years of scientific studies, not one of which suggests DDT is safe in the wild.<BR/><BR/>DDT alone cannot end malaria. DDT only works if malaria itself is wiped out in the human population while mosquito populations are reduced. Use of DDT knocks down a current generation of mosquitoes, but they quickly come back. DDT also knocks down predators of mosquitoes, which recover much more slowly. So use of DDT means a resurgence of mosquitoes, and if malaria isn't controlled in the meantime, a resurgence of malaria.<BR/><BR/>Bednets have been proven very effective, and in test runs done in Uganda, Tanzania, Swaziland, South Africa and Zambia show a good campaign on bednets will reduce malaria infections between 50 and 85 percent -- much better reductions that we get from DDT. Bednets cost less than $10.00, and lasts about 5 years. A treatment of a house with DDT costs about $12.00, and lasts about six months. The Gates Foundation and other charities are working hard to spread bednets, because they work much better than any insecticide. Several of these studies have been done since 2005, so your correspondent may not have known about them, then.<BR/><BR/>If education campaigns have not worked in the past, they must be redone. Ultimately the only way to wipe out malaria is to do what developed nations did: Drain mosquito breeding places close to human homes, screen home windows and doors from mosquitoes where possible (which requires significantly different architecture, and more money) and educate people to avoid contact with vector mosquitoes in their daily activities. <BR/><BR/>Also, medical care must be improved, both to diagnose and treat malaria infections, and to use pharmaceuticals effectively to avoid pushing the evolution of the parasites to be resistant to the drugs.<BR/><BR/>The recent resurgence of malaria in Africa was due to the resistance to the drugs used to treat the parasites in humans, not to a rise in mosquitoes. DDT cannot affect the parasites, as your correspondent notes -- but that simply means that DDT is not a panacea. We cannot poison Africa to health when a lack of poison is not the problem.<BR/><BR/>DDT resistance is now worldwide among mosquitoes. As a mosquito repellent, DDT is not nearly so effective as other chemicals, all of which are much less deadly to the predators of mosquitoes. If we wish to repel mosquitoes, DDT is often counterproductive.<BR/><BR/>I find it odd that your correspondent gives credit to George Bush. His administration opposed the use of USAID money to purchase DDT for any use. That policy may have been changed in 2007, but testimony by USAID in that year, to Congress, indicated they still would not spend money for DDT. The politics of DDT among conservatives and business organizations is absolutely impenetrable. It's odd that this woman gives credit to the people who oppose IRS, though. That suggests that she may be similarly ill-informed about other aspects of the problem.<BR/><BR/>But I see that this woman works for CORE. Sadly, CORE has descended into scientific wankery on DDT and malaria, making wild claims about what the stuff can do, and similarly inaccurate claims about programs to use it. <BR/><BR/>DDT is a deadly poison. It kills off entire ecosystems. It is carcinogenic (though only weakly so in humans on first contact). As a tool against malaria, it has only very limited effectiveness.<BR/><BR/>Let's fight malaria, not imagined enemies among environmentalists.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.com