DDT a problem of 30-50 years ago?

[Michael Gochfeld]

Having been responsible for a malaria control program in a Viet Nam
province in the 1960's, I can recount that DDT was used in large
amounts.  It seems kind of circular. It is considered more effective
than newer pesticides MAINLY because it is cheap. And because it is
cheap it is used in large quantities. But it may have to be used in
large quantities to be effective.  Since we did not have secure access
to all parts of our province, we were not able to (EVEN IF WE HAD
SUFFICIENT DDT) to come close to eradicating malaria and malaria was one
of the commonest diseases I saw.  The suggestion that a low
concentration of a residual topical pesticide in paints may be effective
in keeping malarial mosquitos out of people's houses, may improve the
effectiveness. It is certainly preferable to broadcast spraying.  
American troops on MEDCAP activities were sometimes assigned to dust
peoples homes liberally with DDT (cut with talc).  We thought it might
have been more effective in controlling plague than malaria.  

There isn't a simple answer, but the negative impacts of DDT on the
environment don't compare with the impact of overpopulation. 

M Gochfeld


"Jeffrey A. Caldwell" wrote:
> 
> My understanding DDT itself  is indeed, for a pesticide, pretty harmless to man
> and warm-blooded animals, one of the most harmless of all.  I think that in
> specialized applications to protect human life its use could be a relatively
> good thing, especially in tropical countries.  However huge amounts of it into
> the environment did aparently have noticeable effects on bird reproduction,
> especially raptors, and I don't think it is a good idea for huge amounts of it
> to be going into the environment.  I am not reassured by the amount of DDE that
> I probably have in my own body fat.  Even if it is not actively toxic, I don't
> suppose it is anything more than "junk" my body would just as soon not deal
> with...
> 
> My understanding is that health and environmetal problems weren't being caused
> by  DDT per se, but by the DDE, which, of course, was being generated from the
> "harmless" DDT.  I got the strong impression that there were a lot of weasels
> out there taking advantage of people's ignorance about that -- they could
> truthfully speak about the harmlessness of  DDT, but, in my opinion, quite
> insincerely in completely ignoring the inevitable DDE problems it was causing.
> 
> So, "junkscience" kings, show us the papers that prove that DDE doesn't come
> from DDT, or that DDE is just as harmless as DDT!!
> 
> And if you want to "quote" or cite some source as questionable, ESPECIALLY  from
> any "junkscience" pages, give us the page citations of the original source, so
> that we can check the context for ourselves and determine that you are honestly
> and sincerely representing what you are attacking!