Should we bring back DDT?

Question

Was the dangers of DDT overly exaggerated or erroneous?

Thus exposing millions of people to malaria?

BTW...how many of you heard about this? (That dangers of DDT are erroneous)

Answer 1

DDT is still manufactured and sold in other countries.

Americans didn't want to see their birds of prey (which are especially susceptible to DDT) to die off, but that hasn't kept American corporations from selling it overseas.

There are plenty of more effective ways to control mosquitos now, but economics an politics are really what the issue.

DDT is dangerous simply because it does not break down in the environment. Its half-life or persistence in the environment is measured in years instead of in days with more modern environmental insecticides.

Add to this the general ignorance of would-be chemical applicators, who generally think "more-is-better," and it can be very dangerous for the environment.

And, no I haven't heard that rumor about it, but anyone with any smarts at all can see the potential for danger when the persistence is so high.

Answer 2

Yes. I have heard of this. The argument goes that DDT is a very useful insecticide and is very effective on mosquitoes. Secondly it could be used in small quantities where needed to reduce malaria. Thirdly that the adverse effects of DDT, particularly in the USA were due to over use by farmers. Proponents also say that when it was in use in malaria affected areas, malaria was almost eliminated.

The USA is not the only place where DDT, dieldrin and many other chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides are banned. They are banned in Western European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and most likely places like Argentina and Brazil. None of these countries with the possible exception of Brazil ever had much of a problem with malaria.

The problem with some of those proposing a return to limited use is that they are also known to be global warming deniers and in a few cases their motivations and associations are dubious. ( see Steven Milloy). While this does not invalidate their DDT argument, it does tend to make many other influential people dismiss them more or less out of hand.

The problem with the controversy is that there are very few people who know enough about it to have an informed opinion.

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

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

Answer 3

DDT was banned in 1972 and a treaty was adopted by 120 countries to phase out organic pollutants including DDT despite of proven efectiveness in eliminating mosquitoes causing malaria. There were few studies describing its bad effects on humans but the main concern was its effects on birds compromised by eating DDT poisoned insects. It is believed it would soften the shells of the raptors and other egg laying species particularly eagles which highly bring up concern of endangered species.
From the time DDT wa banned, malaria control remained skyrocketing in Africa and many other countries, pushing necessary use of DDT to help control malaria despite the ban. Since the DDT ban, there is no any substitute in its effectiveness. Incidence and death tolls increases without its use.
Yes you have a point. Though we cannot definitely say that there is no danger in DDT use, but since it was banned there is no any study or research proving bad effects on human worthwhile to ban it and let malaria remain a big health problem.
"Studies conclude that there are no serious effects in people under normal use. According to ATSDR, there are no studies on the health effects of children exposed to DDT. There is no evidence that DDT causes birth defects in people."
It is true that there might possibly be few effects affecting the health but definitely it won't be as dangerous as the effects of malaria to the humans. It was banned for considering its imposed hazards yet there were no wide studies conducted to have an absolute deduction to suffice its necessary ban.
I believe not all countries are infested with mosquitoes so it would sound appropriate to have the laws modified. Appropriate use of DDT with all the necessary precautions should be allowed to countries infested with mosquitoes causing risk to malaria. For areas with birds that could get affected and arising fear of extinction, there should be specific plan implemented that cares for both sides-keeping the birds safe while protecting the humans. A single rule for the world is highly unreasonable. It is choosing between "birds" and "humans". Should we ban the DDT to keep the birds safe and let humans to suffer from malaria?
To answer your question I believe that the argument on dangers of DDT are quite exaggerated. Not that erroneous as there are really dangers on its use but there seem to be an erroneous judgement in chosing to protect birds more than humans.
If you were to choose, would you protect an eagle or a child?

Answer 4

Perhaps you should ask an American Bald Eagle if "the dangers of DDT" were "overly exaggerated or erroneous", the thinning effect on their eggs drove them to the edge of extinction. With its banning, their populations are starting to recover.

P.S. They don't have malaria in countries where the ban is enforced!

Answer 5

DDT has already been brought back. The pattern was somewhat like most scientific problems that require some political debate. Those right-wing reactionaries with the "screw the eagles and condors" mindset were wrong. The liberals, who forced the universal ban without compromise or a known solid alternative, were even more wrong. It will now be used sensibly, spraying inside living quarters periodically, for instance, but not broadcast willy-nilly throughout the countryside. I find my feelings too conservative to agree with the right, and not bloodthirsty enough to agree with the left, and find parallels in lots of current problems. It's nice to see some sense in one area.