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.com/article/SB124303288779048569.html

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

news from 2006 and published now?

Now that was an insightful comment. Thanks.

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

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...

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.....

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

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.

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?

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

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

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...

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