Coggins7 wrote:Your appalling misuse of data is apparent, Loran. A few corrections:
1. the malaria problem isn't due to the lack of use of DDT. The problem is the treatment no longer works, due to resistence built into the malaria microbe:
I'm not misusing any data, the data are quite clear and well attested (as the many African nations pleading for the U.N. to allow renewed usage attests).
Uh huh. And we're supposed to just take your word for it. Not likely. Document your sources, Loran.
The problem here is that you very simply don't know what you are talking about and do not care to know.
And from my end, I could say the same about you. And this gets us what? Into a junior high level "does not... does too... does not... does too..." argument?
The treatment still works quite well when used properly,
That's not what Jim Norton says. Oh, but you can contradict him because you're such an expert, right?
and in this sense resistance isn't the issue, since the aversion effects prevent the transmission of Malaria quite effectively, and far better than any of the presently used (and much more expensive) alternatives. DDT use, even in the sixties, was never really to kill the insects outright, but to keep them away from humans.
You might want to look into different methods then... like draining the swamps and stagnant water where the little buggies breed. That's one heckuva lot cheaper than any chemical.
The page you reference contains not a single refutaton of the facts as they are known and not a single reference to a peer reviewed study of DDT or its present use.
Since I didn't reference a page, who knows if you're actually looking at the same study?
There have been many of those (and I can easily access them and put them up here, but why bother)
Of course you can... and we believe you, yes we do. Honest. *nodding*. Really.
and DDT is presently under continual consideration for reintroduction in the Third World as a control mechanism. And who is screaming the loudest for its use? That's right, African medical professionals, governments, and health experts. Indeed, WHO is now supporting the reintroduction of the spraying of DDT throughout Africa and the tropics in epidemic areas and in areas of high transmission DDT spraying has been resumed in Uganda and South Africa (in which malaria increased dramatically after spraying was stopped in 2000) and is being aggressively pursued in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Zambia, where malaria infection soared after use was discontinued in the eighties.
Oh yeah, that's right. Except that DDT's not been banned in the 3rd world. As in:
However, DDT has never been banned for use against Malaria in the tropics.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#_note-42 [snip]
Malaria is only #7 in developing countries. In developed countries, it doens't even rate a mention (heart disease, stroke, and cancers round out the list with accidents and suicide are at the head of the death list in developed countries).
So what? This last point is uttely irrelevant. Should we so much as attempt to prevent these needless deaths or should we not, and should we do it in the most effective and cost efficient manner possible or not?
Try tackling any of the causes ranked 1 through 6... care to take on AIDS?
Every statement I made about AGW is simply factural, and reprsensts the current state of scientific knowledge on the matter.
so you say. And we should just believe you, right? No documentation, no sources, no links... let's all just believe what Loran says, simply because it's Loran that says it. Maybe in your fantasy world, that works. Here, we like a bit more than just your word for it.
As to DDT, mutating bugs have nothing to do with it.
Must you be so literal? The malarial microbe is what mutated, rendering previously effective treatments ineffective. Hence, the number of deaths rises, not because the number of infections rises, but because the treatment isn't as effective.
And actually in some places, the effectiveness of DDT has fallen dramatically.
The growth of resistance to DDT and the fear that DDT may be harmful both to humans and insects led to the U.N., donor countries and various national governments restricting or curtailing the use of DDT in vector control.
In some areas DDT has lost much of its effectiveness, especially in areas such as India where outdoor transmission is the predominant form.
And:
According to a pesticide industry newsletter, DDT is obsolete for malarial prevention in India not only owing to concerns over its toxicity, but because it has largely lost its effectiveness. Use of DDT for agricultural purposes was banned in India in 1989, and its use for anti-malarial purposes has been declining. Use of DDT in urban areas of India has halted completely. Food supplies and eggshells of large predator birds still show high DDT levels.[63] Parasitology journal articles confirm that malarial vector mosquitoes have become resistant to DDT and HCH in most parts of India.
And:
DDT resistance exists in West Africa and in other malarial areas, such as India. Isolated occurrences of DDT resistance have occurred in South Africa, and South Africa continues to monitor for resistance
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#_note-42Of course, that what they say completely contradicts what you say is immaterial, isn't it? We're just supposed to accept your word for it. R-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght.
Not a single study done to the present time since the ban of DDT has shown any compelling causal links between thinning egg shells or bird population decline, and these number in the hundreds at this point.
Nor is there a shred of conclusive evidence of DDT as a cancer risk, or any other kind of risk. No known human pathology is related to DDT exposure, even in large doses.
Are you really this bad a researcher, that you can state that with a straight face? Not a shred? A shred?
What about:
A 2006 study finds that even low-level concentrations of DDT in serum from the umbilical cord at birth were associated with a decrease in cognitive skills at 4 years of age.
What about:
With detailed work history of chemical manufacturing workers to estimate DDT exposure, a nested case-control study reported occupational DDT exposure associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk.
I don't know if you know much about pancreatic cancer, but it's the worst kind to get, and it's virtually incurable.
Maybe you'd like to moderate your words a bit, because right now, you're sounding pretty foolish. Not a shred, huh?
As to Boomer heartlessness, you yourself, right here, have cavalierly dismissed the suffering and death of two million men, woman, and children a year in the poorest parts of the earth by pointing out the realtive death toll from other diseases and essentially saying "so what"? You yourself have clearly implied that the lives of Eagles and other birds are of more relative importance than the lvies of children in Nigeria or Zambia. After all, when you look at heart disease, resperatory infections, and AIDS, the maleria toll is rather modest. And anyway, you can walk around and feel good about yourself that you're a good planatary citizen. You care, you're concerned about the environment, and you're doing your part to save the planet and tread lightily upon the earth...no matter who has to suffer so you can continue your self indulgent pseudo intellectual and moral pose.
Gag me with an arc welder.
Loran
Balderdash, Loran. Pure unadulterated horse manure. Clean up your own backyard before you look over the fence into mine. [/quote]