Nicholas Kristof has a good piece in The New York Times on how the First World can take one simple step to save millions of lives in the Third: end the needless and harmful ban on DDT for malaria control:
I called the World Wildlife Fund, thinking I would get a fight. But Richard Liroff, its expert on toxins, said he could accept the use of DDT when necessary in anti-malaria programs.
“South Africa was right to use DDT,” he said. “If the alternatives to DDT aren’t working, as they weren’t in South Africa, geez, you’ve got to use it. In South Africa it prevented tens of thousands of malaria cases and saved lots of lives.”
At Greenpeace, Rick Hind noted reasons to be wary of DDT, but added: “If there’s nothing else and it’s going to save lives, we’re all for it. Nobody’s dogmatic about it.”
So why do the U.N. and donor agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, generally avoid financing DDT programs? The main obstacle seems to be bureaucratic caution and inertia. President Bush should cut through that and lead an effort to fight malaria using all necessary tools – including DDT.
Indeed he should. The ban on DDT is mindless. The amount of DDT sprayed inside a hut can kill mosquitoes on contact for weeks, preventing millions of needless deaths from malaria without harming the environment at all. DDT is nowhere near as toxic as it has been made out to be — given that millions of Americans were exposed to it during World War II and then went back to create the Baby Boom, the arguments that DDT is toxic or carcinogenic have been thoroughly debunked in numerous scientific studies.
The death toll from malaria has been anywhere from 30-60 million since the ban on DDT — many of those deaths could have been prevented if simple steps had been taken. It is time to stop allowing mindless scare tactics and outright deceptions prevent us from taking action to stop one of the leading killers in Africa and South Asia. The ban on DDT should be lifted and effective malaria control programs should be put into place.
The ban on DDT should be lifted
No, it shouldn’t. It’s a known environmental toxin and it and it’s breakdown products are well-established to be linked to reproductive issues because they mimic estradols in the human body:
J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2004 Sep 24;67(18):1407-22.
Not to mention renal failure:
J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2004;42(3):299-303.
In addition, DDT bioaccumulates in the body, so it’s health effects can persist for decades:
J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 1999;18(4):297-303.
As a lipophillic organochloride it can easily be transmitted through breastmilk into the infant, exposing the infant:
Sci Total Environ. 2004 Aug 15;329(1-3):289-93.
It’s an immunosuppresive in humans:
Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Jul;112(10):1080-4.
And implicated in cancer:
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2004 Jun;25(6):479-83.
Chemosphere. 2004 Mar;54(10):1509-20.
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun;33(6):259-70. (This article says that the link between DDT and cancer is “unequivocal”.)
And this isn’t even getting into its effects on the rest of the ecosystem, such as the drastic thinning of eggshells caused by DDT.
If you want to know what organochlorides like DDT are capable of, just look at Viktor Yushchenko’s face. While you’re right that the link between DDT and breast cancer has been largly discredited that’s akin to saying that at least bullets don’t make your hair fall out. DDT does more than enough bad stuff in the human body, and in the environment, to merit its suppression. Just the fact that it’s a bioaccumulative organochloride should give you significant pause before advocating it’s widespread use; but then, we’ve more than established that you don’t know shit about science.
You clearly didn’t bother to even read the synopses of the articles you posted. For instace, the results of the study in Toxicol Environ Health A. 2004 Sep 24;67(18):1407-22. concludes:
If there’s no consistant dose response, there’s doubt about a casual relation between exposure to DDT and any health effects. There are many weakly estrogenic organochlorine compounds out there, none of which have been traced to any health effects in a convincing and scientific manner.
The second link describes two individuals who ingested a massive amount of DDT. And had you read the article you’d note the conclusion:
Even after a massive dose of DDT, both father and son were treated and discharged. The amounts of DDT we’re talking about would be significantly less.
If you eat Raid, you’d be dead, but those pesticides can be found in any home.
The third study was conducted after Israel used massive sprays of DDT, resulting in a level of exposure that would be many thousands of times as massive as would be used in Africa. Furthermore, there was no evidence that there were any adverse health effects from that exposure (as the many studies have shown, DDT is not carcinogenic).
The rest are also contraindicated by the numerous studies that find no correlation between DDT and carcinogenic properties or health risks.
Which is entirely untrue: (Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 (“There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning].”)
Except DDT is entirely chemically different from dioxin and doesn’t cause the same symptoms. A complete and total red herring and scientifically illiterate to boot.
Yup, I don’t know shit about science. Just enough to prove that you’re full of it. And apparently Nicholas Kristof, Michael Crichton, nearly every center for tropical health medicine, and everyone else who calls for an end to the genocidal ban on DDT also don’t know shit about science.
Meanwhile, more Africans die of a preventable cause, while environmentalist nutjobs prevent a simple, safe, and effective way to prevent millions of those deaths. The scientific evidence is clear: the amounts of DDT that would be used to control malaria would not be harmful to anything but mosquitoes.
You clearly didn’t bother to even read the synopses of the articles you posted.
I did, as a matter of fact. Honestly your ignorance of science makes your analysis not worth a damn, but lets play along.
However, no consistent dose-response effect was apparent across low, medium, and high exposure categories.
This is, of course, not the same thing as “no effect at all. The interactions with carcinogens in the body are highly related to genetics, so there’s intense variability between subjects in regards to cancer studies.
The amounts of DDT we’re talking about would be significantly less.
The problem for you is that you don’t understand how bioaccumulation works. The body has slmost no ability to excise these compounds, being as they are lipophillic. There’s almost no difference between ingesting a lot at once and ingesting the same amount over a long period of time. The effects are the same because the organochlorides build up.
as the many studies have shown, DDT is not carcinogenic
DDT is at least weakly carcinogenic, as the studies I gave you proved.
Which is entirely untrue
Contradicted by studies: Environ Pollut. 1997;95(1):67-74. Environ Pollut. 2005 Mar;134(2):353-61. Environ Pollut. 1997;97(3):295-301. Environ Pollut. 2000 May;108(2):225-38. Environ Pollut. 1988;52(2):81-102. And hundreds of other studies.
Now, an interested observer might very reasonably wonder “both Jay and Chet have studies to back both of their positions. Who should I believe?” Hopefully that interested observer will note that none of your papers is more recent than 1979.
You need to get up to date, Jay. basing policy on decades-old, refuted research is idiotic. But, you know, whatever. Bring back DDT. Of course the ban is largely credited with the return of bald eagle populations in the US – I should think that would appeal to your sense of national pride. But apparently not even the living symbol of our nation can outweigh your interests in, what, exactly? Given that safer alternatives to manage malaria exist and are effective, exactly what is your interest in bringing back this dangerous chemical?
Except DDT is entirely chemically different from dioxin
Another completely ignorant statement. Not only are both compounds lipophillic organochlorides, their pathology in the human body are almost identical, though DDT thankfully is not quite as bad. Their chemical structures are quite similar, as anyone can see from a simple chemical diagram.
Yup, I don’t know shit about science. Just enough to prove that you’re full of it.
From blatant misstatements of scientific articles to a reliance on decades-out-of-date materials, the only thing you’ve proven is that you slept through all of your science classes. I’m sorry but there’s absolutely no reason to accept the opinion of someone who can’t even read the dates on his research on this issue.
More playground name-calling.
Except numerous studies have shown no causual relation between DDT exposure and cancers.
Except we have cases on record of people who were exposed to massive amounts of DDT and had no ill health effects. The concentration of DDT is still micrograms per liter, which is not sufficient to cause any health effects. Since you’re obviously more scientifically aware than Michael Crichton, the CDC, or the Uniformed Medicare Services Tropical Diseases Division you’d know that a microgram is an extremely small measure. Given that you just pointed to a study in which someone consumed several grams of DDT and was treated and released, arguing that a tissue concentration of 1.5e-06g/L over a lifetime is a health risk is scientifically illiterate.
And if you had a lick of common sense you might ask why we’re not seeing massive toxicity effects. If DDT was such a toxin, every soldier in World War II should have died of cancer, along with every farmer in the country. Both groups were exposed to massive doses of DDT, yet if you’d bothered to read Occup Environ Med 1998 Aug;55(8):522-7 in the list I linked to you’d know that farmers who lived with massive amounts of DDT for years shown no signs of ill effect.
So are any number of household chemicals, yet there’s no scramble to prevent people from using RAID. The only reason DDT was singled out is because a few radicals such as Rachel Carson with no scientific training went on a crusade based on flimsy evidence. It’s the same as the Alar scare, the high-tension power line scare, and all the other mindless unscientific scare tactics unleashed with no scientific evidence.
Except for the fact that you obviously didn’t bother to read the lists I linked to. Last time I checked 1999 > 1979. For someone who claims to be an scientific expert you apparently can’t find a link and can’t do basic math.
Yes, because as we all know bald eagles love to nest in the homes of villagers in Africa, South America, and Asia.
Oh, you mean you didn’t bother to understand the argument long enough to know that no one is advocating DDT as an agricultural pesticide – of course, that would actually require clicking on a link and reading it, which apparently Chet the World’s Greatest Scientific mind is habitually unable to do.
Well, Chet the Scientist should know that looking at a molecule doesn’t make a difference in how it’s processed by the body. In fact, Chet the Scientist should know that a chemical can have a nearly identical chemical structure to another yet have entire different properties. Although based on the responses here, one gathers that Chet the Scientists interest in chemicals is confined to those of the recreational kind.
Yes, obviously science goes bad after a few years. I hear the theory of gravity was made in the 17th Century! Quick, someone write a new paper on it before we’re all flung into space.
Since you can’t follow a link, since you feel the need to lace every comment with idiotic ad hominem attacks, and since you’re an asshole, you can go troll elsewhere.