DDT a problem of 30-50 years ago?

[Jeffrey A. Caldwell]

Paul Cherubini wrote:

> Jeffrey Caldwell wrote:
>
> > What support can you give to the statement
> > that "its [DDT] lack of useage kills millions of third world
> > peoples each year"?
>
> According to an article in Science News, Vol. 158, No. 1, July 1,
> 2000, p. 12 http://www.sciencenews.org/20000701/bob2.asp
> the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates
> 400 million people (roughly 6.5% of the world's population)
> contract malaria each year and"several million" people die from it
> or from associated complications.

Paul, it is true that many people are dying of malaria.  A major reason
is
not the lack of  DDT, or bans of DDT, but rather that a world war is
raging
in the portion of Africa hardest hit by malaria; wars, rebellions and
unrest affect much of the tropical third world nations everywhere.  Many
African nations are at war right now [at least nine nations are involved
in
war centering on the Congo, and other little wars all over the place]
and
their governments are in a shambles.  Portions of sub-Saharan Africa are
also hard hit by drought, famine and  AIDs.  

In many of the poorest nations where people are dying of malaria, there
is an inablity to mount effective malaria control programs of any sort. 
It may not be so much that DDT has
been "banned" -- because in most such nations it hasn't -- it simply
isn't
being used beneficially for other reasons that have nothing to do with
environmentalist concerns about the side effects of  DDT use.

What is needed is not necessarily DDT, but peace and justice and sound
governments.  Also, as noted before, malaria control doesn't have to be
only by using DDT.

It is possible that in balancing costs versus benefits, that portions of
the world have been oversold on the "dangers" of  DDT, and that in some
areas DDT "should" be used more to protect human life and interests.  
Because it is one of the safer pesticides for applicators, there may be
an
overwhelming temptation to use it for agriculture in areas where the law
says it is to be used only for malaria control, thus putting more of it
into the environment.   Such illegal and uncontolled use is another
factor
leading more nations to bans of  DDT.

I did not make an argument that spraying DDT inside homes equals massive
effects in the environment.  Neither I nor anyone else I know of 
condemn
any nation using DDT for malaria control.  I suspect that lawmakers in
every nation that has banned it or markedly limited its use have heard
plenty of arguments, pro and con, and weighed their decisions within the
realities of their own national situation.

As noted previously, and I think quite sensibly,  most nations are
working
on developing integrated control methods that minimize pesticide use and
aim for the least "side effects".   For the time being, many of these
efforts do involve using DDT, which is probably a relatively good thing
for
human life and not a total disaster for the environment.

Jeffrey A. Caldwell