This may be off topic but considering the chemical vs organic
arguement, I think it should be included here.

A google of DDT and death will result in articles such as

http://info-pollution.com/moreddt.htm

I think we can have an interesting discussion after reading several of
those articles.

Is DDT more harmful than useful?

"James" wrote in message
oups.com...
This may be off topic but considering the chemical vs organic
arguement, I think it should be included here.

A google of DDT and death will result in articles such as

http://info-pollution.com/moreddt.htm

I think we can have an interesting discussion after reading several of
those articles.

Is DDT more harmful than useful?


More harmful, search for researches and you will see that there this dilema
is non sense

James wrote:
This may be off topic but considering the chemical vs organic
arguement, I think it should be included here.

A google of DDT and death will result in articles such as

http://info-pollution.com/moreddt.htm

I think we can have an interesting discussion after reading several of
those articles.

Is DDT more harmful than useful?



DDT would be great for eradicating malaria. IMHO, malaria is the reason
Africa is a backwards continent that never will amount to much. If they
could beat malaria, Africa could join the 20th century -- or maybe even
the 21st. g

DDT is relatively non-toxic to humans, and it doesn't take much to spray
the inside walls of houses to kill the mosquitoes.

Developed countries that have already beaten malaria can get by without
DDT. We tend to use way too much pesticides in general.

Best regards,
Bob

zxcvbob wrote:
James wrote:

Is DDT more harmful than useful?

DDT would be great for eradicating malaria. IMHO, malaria is the reason
Africa is a backwards continent that never will amount to much. If they
could beat malaria, Africa could join the 20th century -- or maybe even
the 21st. g

There was an article in either Discovery or Scientific American a
couple of months ago about malaria. One of its points is the
harmfullness of DDT is from the large quantities used in
agriculture. Much smaller amounts would need to be used
against malaria carrying mosquito so the amount of problem
generated would be much smaller than the amount of benefit
generated.

DDT is relatively non-toxic to humans, and it doesn't take much to spray
the inside walls of houses to kill the mosquitoes.

So long as that success doesn't tempt massive use in
agriculture.

Developed countries that have already beaten malaria can get by without
DDT. We tend to use way too much pesticides in general.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:18:20 -0600, zxcvbob
wrote:

DDT would be great for eradicating malaria. IMHO, malaria is the reason
Africa is a backwards continent that never will amount to much.

Well, that's just silly. AIDS is the biggest health problem in Africa
today, but there are plenty of others, even when you just consider
parasites. River blindness, leishmaniasis, trypanosomiasis, and
schistosomiasis are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.
The political and social issues would take days to cover, but they're
certainly germane to any discussion on the problems that most of
Africa third world.



If they
could beat malaria, Africa could join the 20th century -- or maybe even
the 21st. g

I hate to sound like a stuck record, but everyone keeps glossing over
the whole resistance factor. There were already some 20 or so species
of mosquitoes that were resistant to DDT by the time the ban went into
effect in the 70's. There were documented cases of species of
resistant house flies, too.

If we went back to using DDT today, there would be lots of areas in
Africa that it wouldn't work, and those areas would rapidly increase;
so there's already a need to find other tools in the fight against
malaria.


DDT is relatively non-toxic to humans, and it doesn't take much to spray
the inside walls of houses to kill the mosquitoes.

Not all malarial mosquitoes rest on the inside wall of the house,
though, some go outside before resting. shrug It's not a simple
problem.


Developed countries that have already beaten malaria can get by without
DDT. We tend to use way too much pesticides in general.


I can certainly agree with that.


Penelope


--
"Maybe you'd like to ask the Wizard for a heart."
"ElissaAnn"

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
James wrote:
This may be off topic but considering the chemical vs organic
arguement, I think it should be included here.

A google of DDT and death will result in articles such as

http://info-pollution.com/moreddt.htm

I think we can have an interesting discussion after reading several of
those articles. Is DDT more harmful than useful?



DDT would be great for eradicating malaria. IMHO, malaria is the reason
Africa is a backwards continent that never will amount to much. If they
could beat malaria, Africa could join the 20th century -- or maybe even
the 21st. g

DDT is relatively non-toxic to humans, and it doesn't take much to spray
the inside walls of houses to kill the mosquitoes.

Developed countries that have already beaten malaria can get by without
DDT. We tend to use way too much pesticides in general.

Best regards,
Bob

DDT is relatively non-toxic to humans, and it doesn't take much to spray
the inside walls of houses to kill the mosquitoes??? where are you living,
it causes defects at unborned child at pregnant women at least, better
think how to with draining the swamps, making local enviroment non
suitable for mosquitos or something else, bann the DDT.

Powerless Agronomist wrote:
"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
James wrote:
This may be off topic but considering the chemical vs organic
arguement, I think it should be included here.

A google of DDT and death will result in articles such as

http://info-pollution.com/moreddt.htm

I think we can have an interesting discussion after reading several of
those articles. Is DDT more harmful than useful?


DDT would be great for eradicating malaria. IMHO, malaria is the reason
Africa is a backwards continent that never will amount to much. If they
could beat malaria, Africa could join the 20th century -- or maybe even
the 21st. g

DDT is relatively non-toxic to humans, and it doesn't take much to spray
the inside walls of houses to kill the mosquitoes.

Developed countries that have already beaten malaria can get by without
DDT. We tend to use way too much pesticides in general.

Best regards,
Bob

DDT is relatively non-toxic to humans, and it doesn't take much to spray
the inside walls of houses to kill the mosquitoes??? where are you living,
it causes defects at unborned child at pregnant women at least, better
think how to with draining the swamps, making local enviroment non
suitable for mosquitos or something else, bann the DDT.





How many salamanders and rare bog plants are you going to doom to
extinction by draining the swamps?

There are no perfect solutions. The DDT will lose its effectiveness
eventually; that's one of the reasons to restrict its use just to
malaria control.

How did we get onto this topic anyway? Oh yeah, James came in here
tossing grenades about just to stir up trouble.

Bob

Hello Penelope & all;

"Penelope Periwinkle" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:18:20 -0600, zxcvbob
wrote:

DDT would be great for eradicating malaria. IMHO, malaria is the
reason
Africa is a backwards continent that never will amount to much.

Well, that's just silly. AIDS is the biggest health problem in
Africa
today, but there are plenty of others, even when you just consider
Possibly true (I haven't checked the numbers, so I'll take your word
for it). But absent a "cure" the only preventative we have for AIDS
today, is abstinence. And, maybe it's just me...but that
'self-administered' preventative doesn't seem to be working real
well...

We have a "cure" for Malaria--and a preventative as well. While it
may offend the sensibilities of those ostensibly concerned with
critters, it's been shown to really, Really, REALLY help those that
can benefit from it--the children of sub-Saharan Africa come to
mind.

All of the factual, in-depth, long-term studies that I've seen on
DDT, have shown it to be no threat to us or our wildlife (except
those living in a chitin skin).

parasites. River blindness, leishmaniasis, trypanosomiasis, and
schistosomiasis are just a few I can think of off the top of my
head.
Yep. All bad. All need some attention. But I'd submit that it's
easier to deal with them when you're not swatting at ookinete
infested mosquitoes...

The political and social issues would take days to cover, but
they're
certainly germane to any discussion on the problems that most of
Africa third world.
Indeed they are.

....
I hate to sound like a stuck record, but everyone keeps glossing
over
the whole resistance factor. There were already some 20 or so
species
of mosquitoes that were resistant to DDT by the time the ban went
into
effect in the 70's. There were documented cases of species of
resistant house flies, too.
So you're saying that for the decade or two that it _might_ take for
some of those mosquitoes to become resistant, that it's okay to let
1.3 million people/year die?

If we went back to using DDT today, there would be lots of areas
in
Africa that it wouldn't work, and those areas would rapidly
increase;
so there's already a need to find other tools in the fight against
malaria.
Why is that? DDT was primarily used in this hemisphere in the
period after WWII until the eco-nutz got it banned in the '70's. It
pretty effectively eradicated that disease. It's probably just my
lack of mosquito entomology showing, but I'm pretty sure those
resistant ones living here can't make it all the way to Africa to
invest their resistant genes over there... In the mean time, 1.3
million folks (mostly children) die every year while the
"do-gooders" dither...

DDT is relatively non-toxic to humans, and it doesn't take much to
spray
the inside walls of houses to kill the mosquitoes.

Not all malarial mosquitoes rest on the inside wall of the house,
though, some go outside before resting. shrug It's not a simple
problem.
Certainly true. But then again, nothing comes with a 100%
guarantee...except the finality of death from malaria.

Developed countries that have already beaten malaria can get by
without
DDT. We tend to use way too much pesticides in general.
I can certainly agree with that.
As do I. But absent a comprehensive "mosquito-swatter" campaign,
I'm not sure what else we can use TODAY that can make a
difference...


L8r all,
DustyB
....

On 13 Mar 2006 12:51:34 -0800, "James"
wrote:

Any particular reason you're cross-posting this to a Scottish
group? Other than to recruit help with the mean lady and start a
flame war, that is.

I have set my replies to rec.gardens.edible only.

Penelope Periwinkle didn't write:

Developed countries that have already beaten malaria can get by without
DDT.

You've mangled the post with your random snippage. I didn't say
this, and you snipped out " We tend to use way too much
pesticides in general" in order to make your response look
stronger.

How important is the environment if it was your children at risk
instead of the faceless millions in Africa? How many of your children
would you be willing to give up to save the bald eagle? Is the western
world just saving African human lives are worth less than bald eagles?

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Once again you're creating a false dichotomy. It's not an either
or choice. We can save bald eagles *and* children in Africa. DDT
is not the only pesticide on the market, it's just one that's
cheap and familiar. And, well, remember that whole resistance
thing? By focusing on using only DDT we offer false hope. DDT was
used in Africa from the late 1940's until 1970, and it didn't rid
the continent of malaria. This would be where understanding the
political climate and culture of the people would come in handy,
but it doesn't lend itself to creating hysterical
anti-environmentalism reactions, so I suppose it doesn't interest
you.

Nice try with the racist angle though.


Sure DDT isn't the perfect solution but how strongly would you argue
about the faults if it's your neighbor who's going to die?

Remember what I said about embracing the power of "and"?


Penelope

--
You have proven yourself to be the most malicious,
classless person that I've encountered in years.
- "pointed"

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:39:58 -0800, "Dusty Bleher"
wrote:

"Penelope Periwinkle" wrote i
zxcvbob wrote:

DDT would be great for eradicating malaria. IMHO, malaria is the
reason
Africa is a backwards continent that never will amount to much.

Well, that's just silly. AIDS is the biggest health problem in
Africa
today, but there are plenty of others, even when you just consider

Possibly true (I haven't checked the numbers, so I'll take your word
for it). But absent a "cure" the only preventative we have for AIDS
today, is abstinence. And, maybe it's just me...but that
'self-administered' preventative doesn't seem to be working real
well...

Yeah, those amoral rape victims and wives of philandering
husbands just have no self control. We should ignore their plight
and concentrate on a disease that isn't spread by something dirty
like S. E. X ..

We have a "cure" for Malaria--and a preventative as well. While it
may offend the sensibilities of those ostensibly concerned with
critters, it's been shown to really, Really, REALLY help those that
can benefit from it--the children of sub-Saharan Africa come to
mind.

Actually, there are drug resistant strains of Plasmodium species
as well as the DDT resistant strains of Anopheles mosquitoes.
Poor patient compliance and self-treatment are the main culprits.
Those could be construed as "self-inflicted", sort of like the
"self-administered" preventative for AIDS, so maybe we should
pass on those victims?

All of the factual, in-depth, long-term studies that I've seen on
DDT, have shown it to be no threat to us or our wildlife (except
those living in a chitin skin).

Cites, please, because that's not what I've read. DDT is not the
Chemical That Destroyed The World the hysterical greenies would
have us believe, but neither is it harmless. The problem is not
the initial application, the problem lies in the fact that it
takes so long to break down. It stays with us for a very long
time, and it's the accumulation in the environment that causes
the very adverse effects.

parasites. River blindness, leishmaniasis, trypanosomiasis, and
schistosomiasis are just a few I can think of off the top of my
head.
Yep. All bad. All need some attention. But I'd submit that it's
easier to deal with them when you're not swatting at ookinete
infested mosquitoes...

What's the difference between getting bitten by an ookinete
infested mosquito and an ookinete infested snail or fly? They're
all very nasty parasitic diseases that have an arthropod vector.

...
...
I hate to sound like a stuck record, but everyone keeps glossing
over
the whole resistance factor. There were already some 20 or so
species
of mosquitoes that were resistant to DDT by the time the ban went
into
effect in the 70's. There were documented cases of species of
resistant house flies, too.
So you're saying that for the decade or two that it _might_ take for
some of those mosquitoes to become resistant, that it's okay to let
1.3 million people/year die?

I'm saying that it's cruel and short-sighted to put all our
malaria prevention eggs into the one DDT basket rather than
continuing to research a more effective and inexpensive
preventative. There are some 60 species of Anopheles mosquitoes
that carry malaria, there are already 20 some species that we
know are resistant. If we ignore those resistant species in a
rush to the altar of DDT, we're not offering very much
protection. There are usually multiple species of Anopheles in
any one area, so killing some doesn't do much to prevent
infection by another.

If we went back to using DDT today, there would be lots of areas
in
Africa that it wouldn't work, and those areas would rapidly
increase;
so there's already a need to find other tools in the fight against
malaria.
Why is that? DDT was primarily used in this hemisphere in the
period after WWII

That's not correct. There were large scale spraying programs all
over the world to try and eradicate malaria. The problem in
Africa was the lack of an infrastructure to facilitate an
eradication program. Malaria was not just a problem in Africa,
there were pockets of malaria in Europe that were cleaned out.

And, thinking on it a bit, why are we only talking about Africa?
Malaria is in most of Asia and South and Central America.


until the eco-nutz got it banned in the '70's.

Um, it just occured to me, you do realize that DDT is still being
used as a vector control, don't you? DDT is not off the market,
there are treaties that set restrictions on its use, but it is
still being used in malaria control. With everyone throwing
around the word "ban" so freely, I thought I should mention it.

It
pretty effectively eradicated that disease. It's probably just my
lack of mosquito entomology showing, but I'm pretty sure those
resistant ones living here can't make it all the way to Africa to
invest their resistant genes over there...

The first species of resistant Anopheles was found in India in
the late 1940's, *not* in the US.

In the mean time, 1.3
million folks (mostly children) die every year while the
"do-gooders" dither...

Yes, I've been deeply impressed with your open-mindedness on the
subject.


DDT is relatively non-toxic to humans, and it doesn't take much to
spray
the inside walls of houses to kill the mosquitoes.

Not all malarial mosquitoes rest on the inside wall of the house,
though, some go outside before resting. shrug It's not a simple
problem.
Certainly true. But then again, nothing comes with a 100%
guarantee...except the finality of death from malaria.

Um, Dusty? Malaria is not 100% fatal. It's still very treatable
in most cases, although the more powerful and expensive drugs
necessary to combat drug resistant malaria come with some serious
side effects, too. When the patients haven't wasted all their
money on surviving that AIDS stuff, that is.

See, infrastructure. If we could get the drugs to the patients,
we could treat them; but finding, diagnosising them, and
monitoring correct administration of the drugs takes money,
manpower, and access to the patients.

This is also why DDT offers such false hope. Spotty spraying and
treatment encourage resistance in both the vector and the
disease, not eradication.


Developed countries that have already beaten malaria can get by
without
DDT. We tend to use way too much pesticides in general.
I can certainly agree with that.
As do I. But absent a comprehensive "mosquito-swatter" campaign,
I'm not sure what else we can use TODAY that can make a
difference...

And it's far easier to bash "eco-nuts" than try and find out.

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-5460-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html looks like a
good program. There are other alternatives to depending solely on
DDT, but expense seems to be the limiting factor.


Penelope

--
You have proven yourself to be the most malicious,
classless person that I've encountered in years.
- "pointed"

Please read

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C...icals/ddt.html

It concludes DDT is not as harmful as claimed and it's more effective
against malaria than alternatives AND cheaper.

Maybe some of you are interested in following up the cites, poke holes
and report back to us. You know I'm too lazy to considering I even
sleep through classes.

On 14 Mar 2006 19:21:57 -0800, "James" wrote:

Please read

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C...icals/ddt.html

It concludes DDT is not as harmful as claimed and it's more effective
against malaria than alternatives AND cheaper.

Well, yeah. I can find about a dozen or so web sites that claim that,
just as I can find a dozen or so that claim DDT will end! all! life!
as we know it.

I realize I put a large spiky burr up your butt and wounded your pride
by trouncing your flabberings about the difficulties and futility
organic gardening. I suspect that's what that cross-posting nonsense
to a Scottish group was about the other night, you wanted help from
your friends. And I realize that you're not especially interested in
balance, just in winning; but you really should have explored the web
site I posted.

The International Development Research Centre's a really interesting
organization created by the Canadian government, and they are, among
other things, helping countries test and establish malaria control
programs that really do take cultural and biological idiosyncrasies of
each area into account.


Here, look again

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-5460-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Explore a little, it's really interesting.

Anybody from Canada here know much about this organization? A quick
google didn't turn up much of anything about it, but I've really
wasted a lot time cruising their site. It's fascinating reading, and
I'd be crushed if it was all a bunch of hooey.



Maybe some of you are interested in following up the cites, poke holes
and report back to us. You know I'm too lazy to considering I even
sleep through classes.


Tsk...such bitterness!


Penelope
--
"Maybe you'd like to ask the Wizard for a heart."
"ElissaAnn"