English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Is saving a person the chance of someday possibly getting cancer worth letting thousands of people die a year to malaria?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

2007-02-02 04:21:42 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment

6 answers

I don't think so. When I was a kid we had an orchard and sprayed DDT against insects. We always had bug free crops that were a delight to pick and eat. We also did not have to worry about EEE or West Nile from mosquitoes. This was in suburban NY not even in an area where diseases were epidemic.

I think the total elimination of DDT was a panicked ill-considered move that many poor people are suffering from to this day.

2007-02-02 04:29:18 · answer #1 · answered by Rich Z 7 · 0 0

There are solutions for the malaria problem without spraying with any insecticide. DDT will do much more damage than malaria does now, if it would be used again. The malaria problem is a financial problem, but the victims can't afford the solution.

2007-02-02 04:33:39 · answer #2 · answered by Caveman 4 · 0 0

I wonder if you read the Wikipedia article you cited. If you did, you might have noticed this: "DDT is obsolete for malarial prevention in India not only owing to concerns over its toxicity, but because it has largely lost its effectiveness. ... Parasitology journal articles confirm that malarial vector mosquitoes have become resistant to DDT and HCH in most parts of India."

Secondly, while most industrialized countries have banned DDT for use internally, some (including the United States) allow it to be produced and exported. And since most malaria outbreaks happen in less developed countries that buy this exported DDT, there is very little basis to your claim that the DDT bans have led to more people dying of malaria.

2007-02-02 05:35:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

DDT can be (and is) used in small amounts indoors in countries with malaria problems. But it's not the answer, it's just a temporary bandaid in countries with very poor medical care.

The problem with DDT was spraying incredibly huge amounts outdoors in countries with no malaria problems. It was well worth stopping that.

2007-02-02 04:38:59 · answer #4 · answered by Bob 7 · 0 0

D D T was being used in way of sprays which in turn got into food web and to humans.Its better to get rid of malaria by avoiding D D T than to have the ill effects after it enters food chain and gets to the life of human beings as a whole.

2007-02-02 04:31:04 · answer #5 · answered by shajan 1 · 0 0

Oh, have conservatives embraced the project of the international well being corporation now? it truly is tremendous information! it really is wonderful to hearken to they have grown a charitable ideal. So, will the Republican get jointly be addressing different subject matters in Africa now? there's some dictators that should be overthrown, and freedom to spread round. particular, they don't have as a lot oil less than their sand, regardless of the indisputable fact that it really is only for the individuals, proper? DDT is banned from fruit- which i think is fortunate for you. and how precisely do you've self assurance President Bush inspired the alternative of the international well being corporation?

2016-12-03 08:56:08 · answer #6 · answered by Erika 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers