How many millions will die without DDT

Well, this is a thread I never expected to find.

DDT is lethal to the genetic code of animals and tends to cause the extinction of birds through the thinning of the shells of their eggs, which causes them to break easily. DDT stays in the environment for decades and can travel right through the food chain.

I remember when everyone carried a bag of DDT in their homes for use on all types of pests and that chemical was sold by the ton! It was good at what it did but they did not discover the down side until several species of birds started dying out, ecologists started finding nests abandoned with lots of unhatched eggs in them and lots of dead animals in the wilds.

I think banning DDT back then happened so fast with our congress that they must have already known more about it than they let on.

Chlordane was examined shortly after and not banned but restricted because that was being used about as much as DDT and turned out to be much more poisonous than people thought.

Naturally, the American manufacturer of DDT promptly took advantage of the open foreign market and the loophole that Congress left in the law; that DDT is illegal to use in the US but not illegal to make and export. It was not OK to poison Americans and American ecology, but it was just fine to sell this ‘nuclear bug poison’ to other nations and poison them and their animals.

DDT’s very problem is that it is so good to use and it can take years before the accumulative effects show up. In some developing nations, they are less concerned over loosing some species than finding farm land, building things and water blast mining. In South America they like to use mercury by the ton to mine and process gold with and, regardless of it’s human and environmental lethality, keep on using it. Currently they have a couple of thousand miners poisoned, have poisoned most of a river and around a thousand acres or more of land. They are too poor and too uninformed to care.

Sometime around 15 or so years ago, when the imports of cheap, foreign vegetables started showing up in stores, I took note and so did others because many came from Mexico, a great buyer of American DDT. We were getting our banned DDT back in the form of vegetables sprayed with DDT! Then South America got into the act with exotic fruits and they use DDT by the ton.

There was a movement back then to force the stop of importing vegetables grown with the use of DDT, but it flopped. You know the process; we produce scientific evidence saying DDT soaked goods are bad and the importers produce similar scientific evidence saying DDT soaked goods are harmless.

DDT washes into rivers and into the sea. Guess you can’t figure out what happens then? Yes! Fish start to die or get odd tumors, shellfish start to die or absorb so much of the stuff that they almost glow in the dark and people dependent on them get to eat DDT.

Like I said, it goes through the food chain. When it hits the sea, vital reefs start dying, along with plankton and assorted needed sea creatures.

Your question might be better phrased as ‘how many millions have been killed because of DDT, and how many millions have been deformed because of the stuff.’

I watch medical TV and it seems to me that in certain nations, like India, Taiwan, Vietnam and such, nations which use DDT, there are major cases of birth defects, far above what would be expected as normal. Most consist of physical deformities. So many that America sends over medical teams to provide surgical repairs at no cost and the doctors find it a good training ground.

The thing of it is, there are far too many patients for these teams to get to them all and there are several teams, including those from other advanced nations, working there. These people have deformities that, over here, have been reduced tremendously in the last 30 years.

People scream about nuclear power plants as being dangerous and so on, but ignore that white powder that has caused more environmental destruction than any nuclear power plant ever has.

I repete , DDT is now only used indoors. There will be little danger to the enviroment.

Do you think the replacements for DDT are completely safe? There aren’t . And since they don’t last as long as DDT it requires more spraying in peoples homes that in itself causing more exposure to humans of dealy chemicals .And it causes more homes to be in danger of malaria to be spread there.

There either has to be a good replacement for DDT or millions more people will die from malaria.

KMudd, it sounds to me like you have an “answer” for your own question, which means to me that you want to discuss/debate it - not find a new answer. So I’m moving it to Great Debates. - Jill

Thanks for moving it. I am new here and I will try to
keep threads on the correct board from now on.
Kevin

On the flip side of this are the following points:

(1) Sure cost-benefit analyses are useful. And, contrary to the claims of the pro-industry anti-environmental movement, the costs are usually considered. One problem, however, is that the costs of environmental protection seem to be consistently overestimated (not only by industry, but even by governmental entities like the EPA), as the article “Polluted Data: Overestimating Environmental Costs” in The American Prospect by Eban Goodstein and Hart Hodges from November/December 1997 (and which can be found on their website) points out: http://www.prospect.org/print/V8/35/goodstein-e.html The reason is basically that the costs are usually competed using very “static” assumptions and not taking into account the ability of the market to innovate and find cheaper solutions to a ban or regulation.

(2) Another place it would be useful to consider costs is in the whole whining debate about rising gasoline prices. Have you ever actually heard any intelligent discussion about how much gasoline ought to cost in order to put the costs onto the producers/consumers rather than offloading those costs onto our society at large? The assumption seems to be that for an efficient economy, low gas prices are always a desirable phenomenon, if not an inaliable right, an idea that flies in the face of market economic theory. In fact, artificially low prices are contributing to horrendous inefficiencies in our economy.

I think that the DDT is a great self-defense manuver myself.

The wrestling move that is.

One thing about these conversations that really bothers me is that they are so one-sided. Opponents of DDT post cites to studies that indicate that DDT MAY increase cancer in humans, and does cause eggshell thinning in some birds. This is bad. No one argues that.

However, Malaria is a nightmare for the human race. Hundreds of millions of people have died from it. It has decimated whole countries. DDT, when it was in widespread use, almost completely eradicated it from the world.

Saying that there are effective alternatives is a trivialization of the problem. If there were effective alternatives, why has Malaria made such an astonishing comeback since DDT spraying was banned? Because alternatives are either in short supply, much more expensive, or less effective.

Here is a link from CNN that claims Malaria in Guyana has increased by factor of TWELVE since DDT spraying was reduced in 1984: http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/11/22/malaria.rising.reut/

The link also claims that 2.5 million people die from Malaria each year. To put that into perspective, that’s 1/3 the number of people who died in the Holocaust, EVERY YEAR. This is a human tragedy of immense scale, and it would be much, much higher if DDT were not used at all.

Given the horrific consequences of unchecked Malaria, it should be the NUMBER ONE factor in decisions regarding whether or not to continue spraying it. And sorry if this isn’t politically correct, but if I’m given the choice between saving 2 million children a year, or saving the Bald Eagle, I’ll take the children. But that isn’t the choice, because everyone agrees that DDT should not be sprayed in massive quantities for agricultural purposes, and it’s my understanding that that was the main culprit.

Now, another issue is a buildup of immunity to DDT in mosquito populations, and that is a serious problem. But it’s a good reason why DDT should not be banned, because it should be used as just one of a number of pesticides that can be rotated in and out of use to prevent the buildup of tolerance.

Let me ask you: if DDT or any other chemical killed 2 million people a year, how long would it last on the market? We’d ban it instantly. Malaria kills as many, and yet I’ve been present during long discussions of whether or not DDT should be banned where the issue of Malaria doesn’t even come up, other than as a side point that DDT is used to fight it. But no mention of the number of deaths, of how many lives would be lost by banning it, etc.

A video I watched in a class on public health several years ago said that DDT was already completly ineffective against mosquitoes in many areas, including much of Southeast Asia, and that the more powerful chlorinated hydorcarbons were rapidly becoming useless. It would be nice to say that we should use DDT in controlled amounts along with other methods for controlling mosquito growth. The problem is that when an emergency situation strikes, it’s not always easy to stick to such a plan. If the number of cases of malaria in a certain area exploded, there would probably be calls for greater DDT spraying, and the problem of immunity would show up again. Are there any locations where DDT spraying has been used for long periods of time and immunity didn’t become a problem?

Look, it may be used indoors in a few areas, but that’s just as bad, for the people. DDT works as a genetic poison, which makes it different from Malathion. Now, I know a person working in Kmart who tried to clean up a major spill of Malathion - a whole case broke, and it not only made her ill from the vapors but actually ate the soles off of her sneakers.

Malathion is deadly and should be available only to the public in greatly diluted forms because most people still think it’s 30 years ago when such over the counter poisons actually were diluted. They understood human stupidity. Not anymore. Stuff is sold full strength so folks apply it twice as heavily, thinking it is still diluted. The public is well known not to read all of a caution label.

So, with something like DDT, how do you think the control mosquitoes by using it in houses only? The answer: They don’t!

DDT is liquefied, run through a mass sprayer – kind of like the spray trucks they use in the summer around here at night, and great areas are fogged. The fog gets into houses, open water, settles on plants, clothing and everything else as it knocks mosquitoes out of the air.

Anyone remember night school football games in the summer around 30 years ago? Remember those trucks fogging the stadium with that strange but not bad smelling fog to keep away mosquitoes? DDT, my man, DDT. You bought it by the gallon, liquefied, and attached a simple drip device to your lawnmower that trickled it into the muffler, filled up the tank and fogged your home grounds also.

Later, they mixed it with kerosene to increase the fog value. My Father had one and used to fog the place frequently in the summer.

But, back to my point. Using it in the home poisons roaches, fleas, ants, termites and nearly everything. They do not die instantly. Many flee the house and, weakened, become lunch for other insects and animals. The DDT gets absorbed into these opportunistic feeders and if they get consumed, the stuff goes into them. Eat enough and the levels go up, start affecting the genes, start affecting the unborn and so the cycle begins.

DDT has to be spread in volume to kill mosquitoes, so it will either be applied via aircraft as a powder or liquid and by hand or boat as a fog. DDT pollutes the water mosquitoes breed in, poisons anything which drinks from it, and poisons even the ground when it seeps into the mud.

http://worldwildlife.org/toxics/progareas/pop/ddt.htm

(Excerpt): . Currently, DDT’s only official use, as specified by the World Health Organization (WHO), is for the control of disease vectors in indoor house spraying – although other (illegal) uses are suspected. Because of the availability of safer and effective alternatives for fighting malaria, WWF is calling for a global phaseout and eventual ban on DDT production and use.

http://www.purefood.org/Organic/greentea.cfm
The above site reports DDT found in green tea, and guess which type of Tea is now becoming one of the current healthy things to drink?

As of at least 10 years ago, America happily produced DDT in bulk for selling to other nations. I assume it is still being produced in America, never having known a little thing like killing millions ever to have slowed down American Big Corporations. If there is profit in it, American Major Companies will produce and sell it and the bigger the profit, the more they fight to continue to do so and minimize the hazards.

Just look at the ongoing fight to clean up the meat industries and it took Mad Cow disease to stop companies from mixing in animal protein with vegetarian foods for vegetarian animals.

Take a look at some of the pet food industries who use euthanized pets, road kill, diseased animals, rotten meat, too much salt and too much corn filler in their product, which has been known to cause the rapid increase in cancer in pets for years but they do nothing to try to better their goods.

Several States are being looked at for deliberately increasing fuel prices, actually price gouging. Low gas prices encouraged tourism, which made many States flourish and people used to take off to ‘see America’ every vacation, but now most stay at home. Ever wonder why gas prices soar during the vacation periods and in winter? It isn’t always because consumption is higher than imports nor is it the fault of Saudi Arabia always increasing the crude prices. It’s greed.

DDT shows up in human breast milk, in newborn babies, and it takes ages to diffuse into harmlessness in the environment.

Like Mercury. Mercury used to be used in the lumber industry to help remove bark from trees, why or how I’ve no idea, but the ban on Mercury, of the restriction of it, came after scores of lakes around mills became poisoned into oblivion by Mercury, thousands of workers started showing high levels of Mercury, surrounding lands started showing high levels of mercury and thousands of fish died, developed diseases or contained high levels of the stuff.

Mercury also washes into rivers and seas and today, health officials warn pregnant women against not only eating certain types of salt and fresh water fish, but to restrict their intake of others because of Mercury contamination. Mercury does nasty things to fetuses and nasty things to human neural systems. In some northern lakes which used to be used by logging mills, if you sample the muck, you can bring up little portions of liquid Mercury, even today, years after it was restricted.

There are alternatives for DDT and mosquitoes, but under developed nations do not want to pay the price, DDT makers do not want to loose business, and a whole lot of places couldn’t care less about the lives and health of poor citizens, like India.

[nitpick]
I agree that indoor use does reduce DDT’s entry to the environment, but it does not eliminate it. Drain systems will send some of it right back out into the environment.
[/nitpick]

Check out this url http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no3/roberts.htm

the following is from the above url

The Use of DDT in Agriculture versus Malaria Control
In 1993, North, Central, and South American countries used 1,172,077 kg of DDT to spray house walls (4). While this may seem to be a large amount of insecticide, it actually represents less than 6% of the DDT used in the United States alone in 1968 (15). More than 795 kg of DDT might be used to treat a mere 0.4 km2 (100 acres) of cotton during a growing season.4 This amount of DDT would be sufficient to treat more than 1,692 houses. At four to five persons per house, spraying 1,692 houses translates into protection for as many as 8,460 persons. Since rural households are the primary candidates for house spraying, the 1,692 houses would be spread over a very large area. If a household of five persons is used, for example, significant levels of malaria control could be obtained for all populations at moderate to high risk for malaria transmission in Guyana by spraying only 17,000 houses during a single spray cycle. This level of treatment for the whole country of Guyana, covering an area of 215,000 km2, is roughly equal to the amount of DDT that might be used to spray only 4 km2 (1,000 acres) of cotton during a single growing season. These statistics demonstrate the differences between DDT for agriculture and DDT for malaria control. On a landscape scale, a sprayed house represents an infinitesimally small spot treatment of a closed and protected environment (the house). DDT is relatively insoluble in water, so even when a house collapses and decays, DDT will not easily move from the house site.

Check this url for DDT and breast cancer.

http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/bcerf/Newsletter/general/v3i1/rcDDT.cfm