Science Forums 2

[Michaelangelica]

A pro report
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...malaria_2.html.
How spraying the insides of houses is less a problem, to humans, than spraying fields is a moot point?

"For duration of activity there is no [competitive] chemical that even comes close to DDT, and of course the duration is a big factor in overall cost," Roberts, of Uniformed Services University, said.

"If you're spraying one time versus four times a year, the cost difference is enormous."

Cost is critical, because malaria typically affects the poorest of the poor—lower-income people in developing nations.

DDT also packs a dual-threat capability: It not only kills mosquitoes outright, but it also works as a repellent.

"[Treating house walls] is a perimeter treatment," Roberts explained. "The people you're trying to protect are on the inside of the perimeter, so mosquitoes will come up to that wall, detect the DDT in the vapor phase, and move away from it," Roberts said.

Environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club have acknowledged the chemical's usefulness in saving human life.

"We have not opposed the use of DDT to fight malaria in developing countries," said Ed Hopkins, director of the Sierra Club's environmental quality program.

"Obviously malaria is a serious disease and a public health threat in developing countries. Local public health authorities are in the best position to decide if their countries need to use DDT to fight malaria.

"This is a relatively minor use of DDT compared with agricultural uses," he continued.

"We think it's important for developing countries to be able to protect the health of their citizens, but not to use vast amounts of DDT for growing crops when there are safer alternatives available."

Some experts caution that once the chemical is revived in quantity, DDT may be put to use—or misuse—in agriculture. Robust monitoring will be key to limiting its potential negative effects.

Managing DDT's application to account for insect resistance is another challenge.

Insects are remarkably adaptable, so use of DDT must be carefully monitored and controlled to ensure that the treatments don't enhance insects' genetic DDT resistance.

Despite the potential roadblocks, many health officials have brightened at the prospect of the pesticide's disease-fighting power.

Arata Kochi, director of WHO's Global Malaria Program, is one supporter.

"Quite often in this field politics comes first and science second," he told Nature Medicine. "We must take a position based on the science and the data."

Hindustan Insecticides is a/the? major producer of DDT in India.
Hindustan Insecticides Ltd is a Indian government owned operation which has been criticised, by a government environmental agency, for polluting the river it was sited on before and after it burnt down. I believe it is now back in production
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl21...8002803600.htm

. . .Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., Eloor (a Government of India enterprise manufacturing insecticides, where a major fire had engulfed the endosulfan plant in July) should be closed down and that the area "should be allowed to recover from the various toxic materials and chemicals used by the company and discharged by it into the environment over the decades."

This from the country that gave us neem one of the safest organic pesticides

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1759613,0008.htm

Data from the 2001/2002 findings of the All-India Co-ordinated Research Project on Pesticides (AICRP), a wing of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, shows that 63.5 per cent of 529 vegetable samples tested had pesticide residues. Of the 199 vegetable diet samples surveyed, 26 per cent had DDT, which causes cancer, mutations and convulsions, among others.

The AICRP also detected pesticides such as DDT and MCH (methylcyclohexane) in milk samples from across the country in 2001.

Of the 468 samples tested, DDT was detected in 41 per cent samples, and MCH in 65 per cent. DDT and MCH are known to cause cancer and genetic defects.