WHO plans to reduce reliance on DDT to fight malaria

Cutting by 60% is pathetic. DDT can "eradicate" malaria, meaning, 100% reduction.

Remember that the remaining 40% between DDT and the alternative consists of the lives of human beings.

As I call myself a humanist, I believe the human beings are worth more than a few songbirds, frankly, for 50 million human lives, I could deal with a silent spring.

tehdude,
I don't think that's what it means:

The initiatives come amid long-standing and growing concern over the use of DDT and evidence that in many countries there is increasing mosquito resistance to the pesticide.

However concern over DDT is matched by concern over the global malaria burden in which close to 250 million cases a year result in over 880 000 deaths. Thus any reduction in the use of DDT or other residual pesticides must ensure the level of transmission interruption is, at least, maintained.

It's not talking about reducing malaria cases by 60% versus doing nothing which is what you seem to be implying.

DDT kills the songbirds, and were it just a question of sacrificing a few songbirds to save 50 million people, no one would hesitate to get out the sparrow tongue recipe and make the sacrifice.

BUT:
1. DDT is increasingly ineffective against mosquitoes.
2. At least one recent study shows that DDT kills as many children as it might possibly save; of course, DDT is generally less than 25% effective in preventing malaria. It's not much better than doing nothing.
3. There are much more effective means of preventing the disease than spraying with DDT -- bednets are 50% to 85% effective, for example, and cost about $2.00/year versus $24.00 per year for DDT.
4. The songbirds are part of the long term solution to bearing malaria. They eat mosquitoes and they are more effective at it than spraying, over time.
5. DDT can't eradicate malaria. There was a window when DDT could have been the lead pesticide in an eradication campaign. That window closed in about 1965 and it will never reopen. Spending money on DDT means money can't be spent on effective malaria fighting procedures.

Did I mention that DDT is now connected to cancers in the kids it's supposed to save? That's new knowledge, not available to Rachel Carson.

Greater danger, less effective, more expensive: DDT, the epitome of ineffective dithering that kills millions.

Considering that he's really shilling for promiscuous agricultural use of DDT - the very thing that shortened the lifetime of anti-malarial DDT by a factor of 5-10 ... Not only do I ignore the tehdude-type bastards, but if I believed in hell, that's where I'd look for them.

This crap about DDT has gone years past its shelf-life. The only thing to say now is, sell that somewhere else, you lying whore.

DDT can "eradicate" malaria, meaning, 100% reduction.

Policymakers at WHO believed this fifty years ago. They had an excuse.

[F]rankly, for 50 million human lives, I could deal with a silent spring.

Hypothetical wrong on every level. Blind reliance on DDT kills more people than it saves, and we probably couldn't wipe out every songbird species no matter how much we sprayed. But suppose it didnt, and we could. For some reduction in human mortality, you'd accept mass bird extinctions? What happens after that?

Hmm, one can believe a lot of things. Eli believes you are wrong. On the other hand, the bunny has actually read the reports so you are of course, wrong as well as being opinionated.

Now there is a way to cure this, go read the link and the links from the links, and oh yeah, there are a lot of links to the left on this blog under the rubric DDT.

6 Eli,

To whom are you responding? How can I tell? I have 6 choices: the OP and the 5 replies prior to yours.

Or are you just messing with us?

TS.

Eli was responding to the tehdud troll. He was being more polite about it than Marion was, but I reckon that between them they have said all that needs to be said to an ignorant such as tehdud is.

Oops, did I mis-spell something?

I found the WSJ editorial through the horrible little blog called Green Hell, which is a blog operated by Steven Milloy, I believe (true to the denialist codes, there is precious little information about who runs the thing or why, but it promotes Milloy's newish book, which is titled, "Green Hell").

I hope some readers will bother to go to that blog and deliver a bit of deserved hell, as well as dropping by mine (Millard Fillmore's Bathtub) to shed some light.

It's a pain to deal with these anti-science blogs, but kids in high school find them doing research. Good information, and good links, may prevent a child from going astray.

Thanks for the link, Tim. Lotsa people dropped by today to see what's going on.

Any plan to reduce DDT usage (or even refusal to increase it) causes the DDT DT's in the usual suspects. Signs are - incoherent ranting about killing black kiddies and an uncontrollable urge to write blog posts about the evil environmentalists/UN.

I don't think "tehdude" is trolling, just misread the report, which is easy to do.

The World Health Organisation put out a press release in 2006, which was later construed as admitting it was wrong in opposing DDT and that it's use could save 300 million lives a year. That's not my reading of the actual press release but certainly I'd agree that there's a false perception towards the dangers of DDT and I'd agree with the WHO and other people that it is definitely still a life saving weapon in fighting malaria - of course depending on how it's used - it can obviously cause more harm than good as well, as can pretty much anything. Given this false perception, it's easy to think that people promoting a reduction in DDT are doing it because of this reason, rather than for good reasons. Obviously taking the time to read articles in their entirety is the key to avoid such misunderstandings.

Here is the press release;

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/index.html

It will be a sad day for Africa if DDT is finaly banned for malaria control. There are parts in Africa where DDT has been used for more than 60 years, with millions of lives saved. There are however no evidence of a single human death resulting from the use of DDT in Public Health (not sure where jre get this from). Bednets more effective than DDT??? Very little evidence availalble. They are however excellent tools to fish with, but who worries abount polluting our rivers with the insecticides embedded in the nets or gettign rid of fish.

Malaria fighter has the DDT DT's.

Progress is being made. Not long ago, the pro-DDT trolls absolutely denied that "There are parts in Africa where DDT has been used for more than 60 years". Their story was that the US ban on agricultural use (even in the US, DDT is still available for essential public health uses, though it hasn't been used for many years) was transmuted into a ban on anti-malarial use in Africa. When it was pointed out that DDT had in fact been produced and used continuously, the trolls went into a long series of verbal gymnastics about "de facto bans", quasi-bans and so on (JF Beck was a particular fan of this kind of thing, IIRC). To have someone say that "It will be a sad day for Africa if DDT is finally banned " at least moves the debate into the realms of fact.

Now how do we move the debate forward into the realms of fact. I will gladly continue to live with DDT DT's, until some wize-cracks like Michael can suggest some alternatives . Maybe ask one of the pesticide companies (or anyone else) to develop a new chemical to fight malaria (and replace DDT), or are they making too much money on producing chemicals for golf greens than to consider the "black kiddies".

Now how do we move the debate forward into the realms of fact. I will gladly continue to live with DDT DT's, until some wize-cracks like Michael can suggest some alternatives . Maybe ask one of the pesticide companies (or anyone else) to develop a new chemical to fight malaria (and replace DDT), or are they making too much money on producing chemicals for golf greens than to consider the "black kiddies".

malaria fighter is a bit confused about the conflict line.

here are the basics:

the good guys: us. those fighting against widespread use of DDT. the "black kiddies" and those who are really trying to help them.

the bad side: you. the chemical industry. those who spread lies about DDT and what helps "black kiddies", without any actual desire to help them.

it is one of the most disgusting aspects of these discussions: those, who on other forums will write that DDT might be good in solving the "black kiddie problem as well", pretend here, that saving black kiddies is their foremeost interest in a DDT discussion. simply disgusting.

#15, DDT is old chemistry and it is foolish to think that control chemistry and technology has not improved since 1943. WHOPES (World Health Organization Pesticide Evaluation Scheme) recommends 10-12 different materials for IRS applications, not just DDT, and many of those are applied at far lower rates than the 1-2 grams active ingredient per square meter needed for DDT. Numerous reports have shown that these materials are equally or more effective and cost less than DDT for IRS.

Concerning bed nets, not only have they been shown to be effective in numerous trials, they have the advantage of being a physical barrier. Even when the impregnated insecticide has diminished, the physical barrier is still there to protect the sleeper.

Yes, DDT has been a useful tool to combat malaria, but it's usefulness is diminishing and are less and less overcoming the risks involved.

Bednets more effective than DDT??? Very little evidence availalble. They are however excellent tools to fish with, but who worries abount polluting our rivers with the insecticides embedded in the nets or gettign rid of fish.

With nets, Kenya cut malaria rates in half; I noted the story here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/how-to-fight-malaria-kenyas-…

Bug Girl notes actual research on the topic: http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/malaria-and-bed-nets-new-rese…

DDT = the American eagle.

Bednets = Josef Stalin.

This is all you need to know.

Sod, you are having it all wrong. Malaria fighter is not the chemical industry. In the middle of africa, malaria is for real and I do agree that these discussions are disgusting, if you've never been there. What is more disgusting is threats from the west (read EU and USA) against African contries planning to use DDT, because they are concerned that their imports (eg tobacco) from these countries might be contaminated with DDT. What is also disgusting is the chemical industry in the west, focussing most of their efforts on developing chemicals for the west's luxury eg keeping golf greens in a good shape (because this is where the money is, than spending money on developing alternatives to replace DDT.

Shorter Malaria fighter:

The EU and USA are afraid that the products they import may contain DDT. This shows that DDT is perfectly safe, and that the anti-DDT campaign is a huge conspiracy to divert funds towards making golf turfs.

Bug guy, I agree with most of your statements. The fact however is that DDT has other properties (eg repellency) on malaria vectors, that has not be replicated in other chemicals, thus, the other WHOPES approved chemicals are not as effective as DDT. It is here where the chemical industry should come on board and develop new chemicals to fight malaria. The issues with bednets and the projects are: 1. even if you have a bednet, you need to sleep under it (change human behaviour and 2. many bednet studies are "once off" events eg researcher from europe comes in, train communities and distribute bednets, record findings and impact, go back to europe and write PhD + publish results. One year down the line, malaria back to where it was before. The question also is not about DDT, but stopping malaria.

"I will gladly continue to live with DDT DT's, until some wize-cracks like Michael can suggest some alternatives " - mf

No need to "suggest ....alternatives". They're already out there being used. DDT is one small (very small) part of the war on malaria. The focus by some on this small element is weird enough to be considered an obsession.

Why don't they obsess over cross-border co-ordination in vector control, or any other number of highly pertinent issues?

Even considering the repellency of DDT, the utility vs risk is poor and does not support the idea of giving DDT a high priority except in limited situations where other means are not feasible and there is no resistance. Yes, bed nets do require changes of behavior, but studies have shown that educational programs can be effective at producing and sustaining such changes.

Overall, I disagree with Malaria Fighter, other materials have been shown to be as effective or more effective than DDT as an IRS, and to do so at a lower cost. However, one of the 'advantages' of DDT is also a serious disadvantage. It is persistant and long lasting, but if not reapplied in the proper time, this will also result in long lasting sublethal dosing that can produce resistance. Timing the reapplication is not always an easy matter because variations in construction between structures can signficantly alter how quickly the DDT will degrade or wash away.
The focus of some on DDT misses the entire point of IPM by relying so much on a single chemical and methodology. History has shown over and over with many different insect pests and vectors that this is exactly the wrong way to control a problem. Multiple techniques aimed at all life stages and adjusted to the reality on the ground in terms of timing and location are what is needed. If you read the WHO release, you will see that they are pushing for such a multipronged approach.

Sod, you are having it all wrong. Malaria fighter is not the chemical industry.

my point went over your head. so again:

the chemical industry is on your side in this discussion.

they don t want any restrictions to DDT usage, as they will profit, the more it is used. (and vector resistance isn t bad for them either, in a medium term..)

that they don t work hard to develop stuff for the poor isn t a surprise either. they are living the extreme capitalism, that 99% of those supporting DDT use prefer as well.

Ed Darrell made a very important point over at Millard's place: Killing all the mosquitoes doesn't work since both mosquitoes and humans carry the malaria parasites. You have to knock the mosquito population down long enough to wipe out the parasites in the human population. Combination therapy based on artemisinin based drugs together with other antimalarials looks the best and are becoming more economical as synthetic methods improve.

Sod, you are not 100 % with the observation that the chemical industry want no restrictions on DDT; currently, DDT is only manufactured in China and India. The "big" chemical industry players are also behind the anti-DDT campaings, as it is taking up the market of their "environmentally friendly" chemicals.
Bug guy is correct, the approach should be an integrated one, focussing on different approaches, but in certain settings, DDT can be one of the tools to be used. Also the ACT's as mentioned by Eli

I pronounce Steve Milloy the official Denyse O'Leary of climate creationism. Say what you like about him, he remembers to push his books.

Sod, you are not 100 % with the observation that the chemical industry want no restrictions on DDT; currently, DDT is only manufactured in China and India. The "big" chemical industry players are also behind the anti-DDT campaings, as it is taking up the mar

i would love to take a look at the big chemical industry being behind the anti-DDT campaigns.
please provide some links.

you are confusing tactical alliances with the real front lines.

yes, they prefer the use of their product, over the product produced by someone else at the moment.

but without any limits on DDT use, production would be up again quickly. the idea, that the industry would fight reintroduction is absurd. (yes, they would try to get government money to compensate for their restart disadvantage)

so [Montrose](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montrose_Chemical_Corporation_of_California) is not on the pro-DDT side? are you kidding?

There was a window when DDT could have been the lead pesticide in an eradication campaign. That window closed in about 1965 and it will never reopen.

The issues with bednets and the projects are: 1. even if you have a bednet, you need to sleep under it

whereas if you have your interior walls sprayed with DDT, you never leave the house again, is that the idea here?

It seems that dsquared does not realise that this discussion has progressed in a possitive way so far eg there is agreement to move to integrated vector management, so no need for silly comments. Again the reality, bednets are distributed to communities, a high % needs to sleep under them for the intervention to have an impact. If you have a bednet, and you do not sleep under the net, you are not adequately protected. Due to high temeratures in tropics, many epople don't sleep under nets, nets are also used for other purposes eg fishing. If your house is sprayed (not only with DDT, even with other insecticides), everybody staying in the house enjoys protection, even before going to bed - get it

fugba
The results are in.
Treated bed nets are about 4-6 times more cost effective than house spraying.
($400-500 per death prevented with treated bed nets verses $2000-3000 for the spraying).
You can search the archives on this blog to find the link.

Reality has spoken and called you an idiot.
Oh and bye the bye, "It is too hot to sleep under a bed net so instead I will be eaten alive by mosquitoes." Seems like a pathetic argument even for an idiot.

Can someone shed some light on the following: It seems that some of the cencerns around DDT is impact on the environment and subsequently human health effects. Bednets seems to be the intervention of choice. I understand that nets last for two to three years, before they get old and torn and needs to be replaced. What happens with these old nets? Do they end up in the environment and are the bio-degradeble? If we add all the old nets together, what quantity are they making up, or in weight? Can these nets on the long term have a negetative effect on the environment. It seems also from the comments that the nets will not eradicate malaria, so I suspect that for many years to come, millions of nets will be distributed in Africa every year (to replace the old ones and to provide to those not having nets yet.
To elspi: The behaviour of mosquiotes differ. I have seen here in Tanzania that certain times of the year, there are large numbers of mosquitoes that do not transmit malaria. During these times, people sleep under the nets. During other times, the mosquito abundance is down, but there are still malaria mosquitoes around, people don't use their nets. Lastly, I am not sure why you call someone an idiot with valid comments. Large numbers of nets are used for fishing in my country (if you do not have food, will you sleep under a net). I was told that because the nets have insecticides in, the nets not only catch the fish but also kills them. In all our rivers nowadays, you find people fishing with the malaria bednets.

John, i am really happy, that the bednet discussion is helping conservatives to understand complicated concepts, like lifetime impact (bednets) or secondary use (DDT for indoor spraying will end up in agricultural use as well.

20 to 50 years of learning, and you guys will be on the level of understanding, that science is today. happy progress!

The entire enviromentalists movment is based on lies that includes the ban on DDT and this GLOBAL WARMING bunk

>*The entire enviromentalists movment is based on lies that includes the ban on DDT and this GLOBAL WARMING bunk*

Birdzilla, you just shown readers how little evidence matters to you. Is it the mere assertion that counts with denialist?