DDT is it safe or is it danerous? in USA 1972 - it was discovered dangerous for Enviroment and wildlife- Yet it is used in Developing Countries to get rid of Malaria -
(The Malaria Death Clock) http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html
states otherwise - pleave view on who is correct?
2007-08-10 16:30:55 · 6 answers · asked by darcyaf1 3 in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Infectious Diseases
Dangerous, as are all these poisons. there are other ways to get rid of malaria that are less invasive to the planet. when are humans going to learn ?? when there are no more animals left on the planet ?? when we are all so toxic we no longer function??
2007-08-10 16:39:49 · answer #1 · answered by margie k 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
DDT is just as dangerous today as it always was. The only folks who want us to think otherwise are the jerks still trying to sell it. The reason it is still used in countries where Malaria is a problem is because some governments have been convinced by the chemical companies that DDT is a good choice to rid the world of Malaria.
They've done such a good job of it, haven't they? If it was truly effective, there wouldn't be such huge malaria problems in those countries. Duh.
All DDT and similar chemicals do is poison the globe.
2007-08-11 00:36:44 · answer #2 · answered by texansis 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like everything else, you have to weigh the costs against the benefits. I'm not a fan of using chemical means of pest control, but when you have diseases like malaria and to a certain extent other vector-borne diseases crippling societies, it becomes an issue of efficiency and cost.
I'm in a country where malaria is crippling the society in terms of it's human and development costs. In places like this, DDT may be the most cost-effective way to save lives and help alleviate the rampant poverty, which itself contributes to other diseases like the spread of HIV.
So, there is no real answer to your question. Yes, chemicals like DDT may be 'bad', but are they really more dangerous than the diseases they prevent? It depends on who you talk to.
Example: I had an orphan patient (about 2yrs old) die from malaria last week. Keep in mind her surviving family's dirt poor, undernourished, and living in a slum. How do you think they would answer the question?
In short: considerations of how DDT affects the environment/wildlife are a luxury in countries where people can't even afford basic human needs.
2007-08-11 13:33:35 · answer #3 · answered by Blah? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are plenty of pesticides that kill mosquitoes; we don't need to use DDT, which doesn't break down and causes havoc with wildlife, especially birds. For example, the California Brown Pelican was on the verge of extinction because DDT radically reduced the thickness of their eggshells, causing embryonic death.
Everyone should realize there is always a domino effect when a member of the food chain becomes endangered or extinct.
Try malathion, instead.
2007-08-11 21:35:24 · answer #4 · answered by boogeywoogy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see why it's not okay for us but it is okay for others. There is a question though that Malaria kills many people and the risk of DDT is less than the risk of Malaria. So, it could be an issue of weighing the risks.
2007-08-10 23:37:40 · answer #5 · answered by Simmi 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Isn't it amazing how the environmental wackos cry wolf, and then when more details disprove their warnings, they are no where to be found. Oh, except out spending the money they received from the lawsuits they filed for whatever they claim the problem is.
Can anyone say global warming.
2007-08-10 23:40:24 · answer #6 · answered by Phil 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋