15 replies to this topic

[GeorgeWolff]

In 2006, after 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria. So much for that. Earlier this month, the U.N. agency quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease. The result is a victory for politics over public health, and millions of the world's poor will suffer as a result.

story at: http://online.wsj.co...8779048569.html

[Doki]

GeorgeWolff, on May 24 2009, 06:09 AM, said:

In 2006, after 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria. So much for that. Earlier this month, the U.N. agency quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease. The result is a victory for politics over public health, and millions of the world's poor will suffer as a result.

story at: http://online.wsj.co...8779048569.html

news from 2006 and published now?

[GeorgeWolff]

Now that was an insightful comment. Thanks.

[HomeBrew]

Nabi, on May 24 2009, 02:58 AM, said:

news from 2006 and published now?

The third sentence in the opening paragraph is: "Earlier this month, the U.N. agency quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease". This is why it was published now -- it's a new development...

[casandra]

But is DDT really the most effective in terms of controlling the mosquito and hence the disease or is it just cost-effective in terms of pricing when comparing other chemicals/interventions? perhaps according to Monsanto, yes on both counts.....

Edited by casandra, 25 May 2009 - 11:41 AM.

[hobglobin]

casandra, on May 25 2009, 09:36 PM, said:

But is DDT really the most effective in terms of controlling the mosquito and hence the disease or is it just cost-effective in terms of pricing when comparing other chemicals/interventions? perhaps according to Monsanto, yes on both counts.....

It's a very easy and comfortable way to control mosquitoes. If not the unwanted side-effects on the rest of the environment (up to human beings) would exist. And of course the problems of resistance that a wide-spread or uncontrolled use of DDT causes (e.g. in India it's quite useless now).
But the other ways to control malaria (e.g. use of nets, removal or covering of all small ponds, puddles, slops, and other small water reservoirs were larvae can develop near buildings, use of BT in free water and other insecticides indoors, etc). But this needs lots of activity, changes of behaviour, care for the neighbourhood where one lives. If a society follows most of those recommendations and regulations, then DDT is only necessary in some exceptions e.g. to control hot spots. Some contires performed well, others not.
DDT a very sharp weapon, but it has to be used with lots of thinking and caution, otherwise it will work against you and lose its function finally.

[casandra]

Yeah, I knew that..actually, not really so thanks... ..but I think that the point of George's thread is whether we're sacrificing the health of the world's poor for political correctness (or something like that)..more a case for applied ethics..so does he have a point?

[GeorgeWolff]

I was interested in the take here, casandra. Also if folks would bring up data of significant environmental impact beyond Silent Spring.

Edited by GeorgeWolff, 26 May 2009 - 12:59 PM.

[casandra]

GeorgeWolff, on May 26 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

I was interested n the take here, casandra. Also if folks would bring up data (the very little data) of signficant environmental impact beyond Silent Spring.

I was gonna suggest the same thing...we need stats and the WHO should have them..but 3 decades ago I think even Carson didn't endorse the total banning of DDT in the US..altho I'm not sure about this...and this would be a jungle to sort out...

[HomeBrew]

Here's a pretty comprehensive and study-based discussion of DDT's supposed dangerous effects. You're scientists, draw your own conclusions...

[casandra]

HomeBrew, on May 26 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

Here's a pretty comprehensive and study-based discussion of DDT's supposed dangerous effects. You're scientists, draw your own conclusions...

Hi Homebrew, so do you mean that the UN Stockholm Convention on POPs (persistent organic pollutants) got it all wrong? And even if it were so, I think that this is way beyond the science (esp junkscience).
Would you eat DDT-tainted food and drink DDT-tainted water or spray it on your walls where you and your pregnant wife and a brood of little kids live knowing that there's the slimmest chance that it is detrimental to health? And for the other side of the coin, check this out...not heavy on the science for this primer tho (but they should have a lit base) but at least they've got a plan which can work if everyone is willing to do their part......

Edited by casandra, 26 May 2009 - 08:11 PM.

[hobglobin]

At least it's interesting how different studies can produce different results:

1. Junkscience:

"DDT was found to reduce tumors in animals."
[Laws, ER. 1971. Arch. Env Health, 23:181-184; McLean, AEM & EK McLean. 1967. Proc Nutr Soc 26;Okey, AB. 1972. Life Sciences 11:833-843;Sillinskas, KC & AB Okey. 1975. J Natl Cancer Inst 55:653- 657, 1975]

"Rodent tests for a carcinogenic effect of DDT, DDE and TDE produced equivocal results despite extremely high doses (642 ppm of DDT, 3,295 ppm of TDE and 839 ppm of DDE)."
[National Toxicology Program, TR-131 Bioassays of DDT, TDE, and p,p'-DDE for Possible Carcinogenicity (CAS No. 50-29-3, CAS No. 72-54-8, CAS No. 72-55-9)]

1b. Hazardous Substances Data Bank:

"Evaluation: There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of DDT. There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of DDT. Overall evaluation: DDT is possibly carcinogenic to humans (2B).
[IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. 53 234 (1991)]**PEER REVIEWED**"

"CLASSIFICATION: B2; probable human carcinogen. BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION: Observation of tumors (generally of the liver) in seven studies in various mouse strains and three studies in rats. DDT is structurally similar to other probable carcinogens, such as DDD and DDE. HUMAN CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Inadequate. ANIMAL CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Sufficient.
[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) (50-29-3) Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris on the Substance File List as of March 15, 2000]**PEER REVIEWED**"


2. Junkscience:

"Men who voluntarily ingested 35 mgs of DDT daily for nearly two years were carefully examined for years and "developed no adverse effects.""
[Hayes, W. 1956. JAMA 162:890-897]

2b. Hazardous Substances Data Bank:

"... SINGLE DOSE ... OF 10 MG/KG PRODUCES ILLNESS IN SOME BUT NOT ALL SUBJECTS EVEN THOUGH NO VOMITING OCCURS. ... CONVULSIONS HAVE OCCURRED ... WHEN DOSAGE LEVEL WAS 16 MG/KG OR GREATER ... LARGE DOSES LEAD TO PROMPT VOMITING, SO AMT ACTUALLY RETAINED CANNOT BE DETERMINED ACCURATELY. IN ACUTE POISONING SLIGHT DECR IN HEMOGLOBIN & MODERATE LEUKOCYTOSIS WITHOUT ANY CONSTANT DEVIATION IN DIFFERENTIAL WHITE COUNT HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN VOLUNTEERS. THESE FINDINGS ARE CONSIDERED SECONDARY TO NEUROLOGICAL EFFECTS.
[Hayes, Wayland J., Jr. Pesticides Studied in Man. Baltimore/London: Williams and Wilkins, 1982., p. 195]**PEER REVIEWED**"

"... STUDIES OF DDT IN VOLUNTEERS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED ... TO SEARCH FOR POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF DOSES CONSIDERED TO BE SAFE. IN 1ST OF THESE STUDIES, MEN WERE GIVEN 0, 3.5, & 35 MG/MAN/DAY. THESE ADMIN DOSAGES, PLUS DDT MEASURED IN MEN'S FOOD, RESULTED IN DOSAGE LEVELS OF 0.0021 TO 0.0034, 0.038 TO 0.063, & 0.36 TO 0.61 MG/KG/DAY, RESPECTIVELY, EXACT VALUE DEPENDING ON WT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL. SIX VOLUNTEERS RECEIVED HIGHEST DOSAGE OF TECHNICAL DDT FOR 12 MO, & 3 RECEIVED IT FOR 18 MO. A SMALLER NUMBER OF MEN INGESTED LOWER DOSAGE OF TECHNICAL DDT OR 1 OF DOSAGES OF p,p'-DDT FOR 12 TO 18 MO. NO VOLUNTEER COMPLAINED OF ANY SYMPTOM ... SAME RESULT WAS OBTAINED IN 2ND STUDY IN WHICH SAME DOSAGES WERE GIVEN FOR 21 MO & VOLUNTEERS WERE OBSERVED FOR MINIMUM OF 27 ADDNL MO.
[Hayes, Wayland J., Jr. Pesticides Studied in Man. Baltimore/London: Williams and Wilkins, 1982., p. 195]**PEER REVIEWED**"
(here the websites agree, sorry for capitals, it was on this website)

Anyway I agree to casey's position, why should we exposure human beings to such a risk, if there are better and less hazardous measures, as mentioned above (removal or coverage of open water tanks, cisterns etc.; use of nets (LLIN = long lasting insecticidal nets without DDT but alternative insecticides); use of alternative insecticides such as carbamates, organophosphates, pyrethroides; drain swamps; teach the population; use of new drugs such as Artemisinin).
Of course it's more expensive, laborious, and time-consuming. One has to think and use strategies that fit to the conditions found in such places (sometimes even the use DDT in hot spots of Malaria infections may be useful). And not just go back to out-dated measures, with known and unknown long-term risks to human health and the environment, because it's easy and cheap.

Edited by hobglobin, 27 May 2009 - 11:35 AM.

[HomeBrew]

casandra, on May 26 2009, 11:58 PM, said:

Hi Homebrew, so do you mean that the UN Stockholm Convention on POPs (persistent organic pollutants) got it all wrong? And even if it were so, I think that this is way beyond the science (esp junkscience).
Would you eat DDT-tainted food and drink DDT-tainted water or spray it on your walls where you and your pregnant wife and a brood of little kids live knowing that there's the slimmest chance that it is detrimental to health? And for the other side of the coin, check this out...not heavy on the science for this primer tho (but they should have a lit base) but at least they've got a plan which can work if everyone is willing to do their part......

I voiced no opinion at all on either side of the DDT debate; I simply pointed out that the web page I had linked to cited scholarly works to back up most of their statements, and invited others here to draw their own conclusions.

I have no opinion on whether the UN Stockholm Convention on POPs got it right or wrong, because I haven't looked at the findings of this convention nor the studies on which they (presumably) based their conclusions.

[GeorgeWolff]

Asking homebrew if he'd eat DDT, etc. is an emotional argument - silly and irrelevant to the question. As Paracelsus said - the poison is in the dose (and the route of administration). As with the use of any material, we need to consider the benefit vs. the risk.

My bias here is the Silent Spring was more fiction and unfounded conclusion than scientific work amd much of the work I've read that is technically sound works at a technical rather than practrical level.

From the other (benefit) side - consider the positoon of the Malaria Foundation International
http://www.malaria.org/index.php?option=co...7&Itemid=42

[casandra]

GeorgeWolff, on May 27 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Asking homebrew if he'd eat DDT, etc. is an emotional argument - silly and irrelevant to the question. As Paracelsus said - the poison is in the dose (and the route of administration). As with the use of any material, we need to consider the benefit vs. the risk.

My bias here is the Silent Spring was more fiction and unfounded conclusion than scientific work amd much of the work I've read that is technically sound works at a technical rather than practrical level.

From the other (benefit) side - consider the positoon of the Malaria Foundation International
http://www.malaria.org/index.php?option=co...7&Itemid=42

Of course it's a silly emotional argument....really George, you can give Simon Cowell a run for his Idol money....oopps, sorry, that's ad hominem but you're right, it's not a fair question for Homebrew. What I just wanted to illustrate (in my usual twisted way) was that it's very easy to criticise and say that it was a wrong UN decision and that DDT is still the most effective intervention so just give them the DDT..and then wonder if you'd still feel/decide the same way if you're the one who'd be exposed to this chemical and if indeed there are no better, workable alternatives. Why do you think Carson's book provoked such an public outcry and propelled the environmentalist movement? ' a hypothetical american town desolated and forever silenced by man's callous/even brutal treatment of nature', 'the obligation to endure gives us the right to know', 'beware or else nature will turn around and bite you in the bum' etc.

She was maligned for being a hysterical alarmist by the chemical industry and some key figures from the dept of agriculture. But do you really think that the persidential science advisory committee which in the end endorsed her scientific claims based their decision on wild speculations? You didn't have scientists in that group- just bureaucrats and policy makers who were not qualified to make any judgment...this is soo hard to believe...