Redstate

So anything that counters propaganda is propaganda? If you speak the truth in opposition to propaganda, that is not propaganda. There are a lot of highly educated and experienced climatologists
and other scientist who don't agree with Al Gores side. I am glad someone is getting some facts and truth out there. The American people really need some cold hard facts. Assuming that global warming is fact (which I don't), what is the greater threat to people in impoverished countries, the temperature rising a few degrees, or the large economies of the world being so stifled by regulation and taxes that there isn't enough extra resources to help them out? Our early attempts to solve global warming by making ethanol from corn are already creating shock waves in poor countries. The cost of staple foods has become almost unaffordable in many poor countries around the world. There have been food riots already because of shortages around the world. The GW croud stands poised to kill millions world wide. And for what? A bogus threat to the Earth!

If you believe in:

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,"

do you want our government placing repressive taxes and regulations on its citizens? Pretty soon, you won't be able to buy incandescent light bulbs! How stupid is that?! Instead you'll have to buy expensive compact fluorescent bulbs which contain mercury. That is a small taste of things to come. Look forward to high unemployment, poverty, fuel rationing, and an economy that will make Carter's late '70s look like a boom period.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room"
President Merkin Muffley

Where he said hundreds of millions would die?

Fact is that this whole subject is filled with unknowns. It may or may not be happening. It may or may not be a good thing. It may or may not be a threat to our way of life.

We do know there are people with questionable motives using GW to scare people. That's contemptible.

You may "know" that GW is not a threat, but I am not willing to ignore it based on your feelings about some of the people using it.

I would like the Republican approach to be logical, honest and scientific. At this point, most of the science points to something going on. How much is man made or what can be done or how fast is it happening is not fully known.

Let's work from that standpoint.

Leave the screaming theatrics to the other side.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

I believe in truth. Have you not read any articles about the price of food rising to unaffordable levels or the food riots? That is happening today just because of that little old ethanol thing. Imagine how much effect the draconian measure being proposed by large countries are going to have on the poor countries. It is difficult to know exactly how many people are going to die because of our 'cures' for global warming, but I am confident there will be many. I guess that's that's o.k. because the GW folks have good intentions? At least the rest of us will survive even if the poor countries are exterminated. That's real humane! The global warming believers avoid and discount any information or facts that are counter to their beliefs. It has become a religion of true believers. I agree that this needs to be resolved scientifically, but the other side has already declared the debate over, that man made global warming is a proven fact. That is the issue. That is why I see their public statements as propaganda...they will not even listen to the possibility that man has little if anything to do with climate change. There is a very nasty underbelly to their 'movement'. I don't think all believers have bad intentions, but there are many who do. If you have not seen this video, I encourage you to watch it. Do a little research on Klaus, and see what his background is. Global warming could very well be the next movement in Communism...but believe what you will.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room"
President Merkin Muffley

The debate is effectively over. Virtually all the West's top scientific institutions have concluded that human-caused global warming is very real. This includes 30 different scientific societies and all the West's national science foundations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Because vested interests in the oil industry and politics have deep pockets, they can continue to fund a tiny minority of scientists to keep casting doubt on the findings of the majority. (Note that many of those "scientists" aren't even climatologists, but are specialists in other fields; the number of climatologists who disagree with the global warming theory is miniscule.)

This is the same trick the tobacco industry used for years to keep casting doubt on the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer. In science, it's always possible, and even likely, to find somebody who doesn't subscribe to the mainstream consensus. Science, unlike pure mathematics, doesn't require 100% proof beyond doubt. It requires a high degree of experimental support.

Look at what has happened to evolutionary biology. It's now been 150 years since Darwin's Origin of Species. And yet you've still got a few scientists here and there who keep trying to poke flaws in the theory of evolution. They are generously supported and funded by certain fundamentalist Christian organizations whose main interest has never been in science but political power. By continuing to fight this rear-guard action, however quixotic it may seem to mainstream science, they deliberately give the public the mistaken impression that there is a real scientific controversy about evolution anymore. There isn't.

Since politicians, oil companies, and other vested interests aren't going to just go quietly into that good night, we can expect them to fight the same type of guerrilla rear guard action against the global warming theory for another 150 years if need be. But just as with evolutionary biology, mainstream science must eventually call a halt and say enough evidence is enough.

to wikipedia, but I do my own research.

Wiki says it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Why is it that in your science paradigm, minority dissent is always funded by a cabal with questionable motives? I guess dissent is the highest form of patriotism but the lowest form of science. Not to threadjack, but are you saying that Darwinism has existed unchanged and unscathed by valid scientific inquiry for 150 years?

And speaking of 150 year...if scientists are still fighting about Global Warming in 2158, wouldn't that in itself be evidence in favor of the Deniers?

There's people worshipping in there.

in the collection plate, and poke flaws into the suggestion box next time;)

GW and creationism, they are funded by a cabal with questionable motives.

The obvious answer is sometimes the correct answer.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

and if you think that no valid scientific rebuttal of any part of Darwinism exists simply because creationists don't like it, far be it from me to disabuse you of that notion.

Similarly, if you think Global Warming is a done deal because BigOil--which BTW employs thousands of scientists and their hard science to fill your gas tank--is the sole sponsor of dissenting GW scientists, then we'll just have to disagree.

The obvious answer is sometimes the simplistic answer. What happened to the nuance?

Wikipedia??? O.K. Here's my own wiki ref:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientif...

You can check this out too:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

If you are so convinced that global warming is caused by oil, coal, and natural gas, then YOU should stop using any energy source or products derived from them...go ahead...if it is that big a problem you need to start yourself to solve the problem. Do not travel on any conveyance fueled, or produced with fossil fuels. Do not buy that windmill or solar cells because they were undoubtedly manufactured using energy derived from fossil fuels. How about the plastic insulation needed for electrical cables used in solar or windmill farms. How did that gallium, silicon, and arsenic get out of the ground to be used in making solar cells. How does all this stuff get transported? How about your food? Are you a hunter/gatherer? Or does your food come from some large mechanized farm where tractors plant, cultivate, and harvest the crops? How about the fertilizer? I guess it just gets there on its own, not to mention that a lot of it is derived from petrochemicals. How about food processing, packaging, refrigeration, and transportation? Then there's the home you live in and the clothes you wear...how'd they get to you? How were they made? From what?

It takes an incredible amount of energy for you to live the life you live. I'm sure it is all just the selfish oil companies and their government stooges taking advantage of you. It's not like you really want all those things...hell, solar cells and windmills are all we need...maybe a little biodiesel and ethanol thrown in for fun. You are a victim of a conspiracy and you need to take action. If you haven't tried hunting/gathering, it can be a lot of fun, though you may lose weight. I guess you can live in a cave and wear fig leaves.

OK, my point, most people who think like you have absolutely no idea what it takes for them to survive. Most live in cities and have no attachment to the Earth they profess to want to save. The amount of resources needed to keep 6+ billion people alive and somewhat healthy are enormous. Right now, oil and coal are about the best game in town. The alternatives are not ready to take over, and it may be a long time before they are. Without the use of fossil fuels, we will never be able to make the transition. Our economy won’t be strong enough to provide capital needed for R&D, infrastructure, and production. Just a basic question, if the Earth were cooling right now, would you be a proponent of burning as much fossil fusel as possible to stave off an ice age? Do you really think it would work? Do you really think that anyone can accurately predict what the climate will be in 10 years, 50 years, 100 years when they seldom get a weather forecast right a few days from now? Are you willing to watch your liberties and standard of living to drop through the floor, or just other peoples? Is it o.k. if we kill many millions of people in poor countries just so the global warming folks can feel good about what they are doing? Our production and use of corn ethanol is already starting that process.

I’m sure nothing I have stated here will change your mind, but here is one last example to think about:

Michael Crichton wrote a book about global warming titled ‘State of Fear” (you ought to read it). He gives the example of eugenics (look it up if you don’t know what it is) as a belief that was widely accepted, but for the most part has been discredited. Before WWII, eugenics was believed by many scientists, politicians, and the ‘intelligencia’ to be the way foreword for mankind…a way to advance humanity. Cull the feeble minded and lower ‘races’ of humans. Hitler acted on these beliefs and killed 6+ million Jews, and other ‘undesirables’. The funny thing is that after WWII, no one had ever been for eugenics. The truth of what eugenics was all about became evident through Hitler’s actions. By the way, legal abortion was part of the eugenics movement to decrease numbers of unwanted people, I.E. the blacks (and apparently Planned Parenthood is still working on that one). So just because a bunch of supposedly smart people jump on the bandwagon of some new belief is not a good reason for all to do so. Let me ask you one last question:

When and where did the debate on global warming actually take place?

Seems to me a bunch of people (Al Gore, for example) just started running around saying that GW was fact and the debate was over. Think about that one! The debate is just beginning. By the way, global warming folks are saying that the Earth will now have about 10 years of cooling before it starts heating up again. How can that be? We haven’t stopped putting CO2 in the air or taken a bunch out of it. These folks attribute the cooling to ‘natural cycles’. I guess it is impossible for warming to be cause by ‘natural cycles’.

This is one issue that really gets me fired up! Please don't be offended by my rantings.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room"
President Merkin Muffley

Your joking right?? LOL !!!

The source you cited (first one) is total BS, no proof at all & no research to support opinion. Just a few quotes from articles on a PhD's opinion. I read each source below and it is just opinion pieces.

Try reading the entire IPCC AR4 report and provide documented research that disproves the points made.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

If reading hundreds of pages is too much for you here is the Governmental dummy version.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Remember provide documented peer reviewed research - not opinion pieces.

Your Proof read (lol):

Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased
Surface temperatures measured by thermometers and lower atmospheric temperature trends inferred from satellites
Surface temperatures measured by thermometers and lower atmospheric temperature trends inferred from satellites

* Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[5] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[7] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[8]

* Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."[9]

* Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."[10]

an agenda and its called MONEY......

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

If you want peer review try this: http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skep...
My favorite is the physics article that point out that the "Greenhouse effect" violates the laws of Thermodynamics.

The purpose of the link was not to give peer reviewed studies, but rather to show that not ALL scientists are on the AGW bandwagon. You are obviouslly a true believer, and nothing is going to change your mind. If there is true not just proclaimed consensus on AGW, then I will believe in it too. There is far too much that is not known or proven at this point. The fact is, with China and India belching out ever increasing amounts of CO2, actions taken in the US will not have any major effect in lowering atmospheric levels. I'll see if I can find a source, but I remember reading somewhere that the US is actually a net carbon sink, that is it takes in more CO2 than it releases. How is that possible? We have vast forrests in this country (contrary to what citifolk believe)!

By the way FWGuy, what have you personally done to solve the AGW problem you believe in? I have gloating rights because I have planted 6 coastal redwood and 5 giant sequoia trees on my little piece of property here on Lookout Mountain in GA. Over their several thousand year life expectancies, they will suck in many times more CO2 than my family and I will ever emit. I planted them for asthetics, but it does give me gloating rights over people who just talk. I also have started a small business this year and have 130 more of these trees started that are several inches tall now. I plan to sell them to loacl folks for landscaping purposes, so I too can possibly make a little money off this AGW scam. Why should Al Gore be the only one to profit?! I have done my part to cure so-called AGW, so I should be exempt from any taxes the government levies to solve this "problem".

Here are a couple of pics of my trees prior to planting (they are all doing very well and growing fast):

sequoias

redwoods

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room"
President Merkin Muffley

A comparison of logical, honest and scientific arguments. The current argument seems to be mostly the theoreticians and their complex computer models versus the experimentalists and their observations of what is actually happening and has happened. As an engineer, I favor the experimentalists.

I recommend:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdb/GWPP/Review_Article.html

Unfortunately, the debate has left the area of science and entered the area of politics. The average science-illiterate voter responds to illogical, dishonest and unscientific hysteria, and the average politician responds to the voters. (How else explain the popularity of unscientific socialist programs?)

When Algore says: "Unless you take our advice hundreds of millions will die!" it is appropriate to respond: "You may be wrong, but, right or wrong, if we follow your advice, then a different hundreds of millions will die, and we won't even save many of those you claim are at risk." (Even by their models, Kyoto postpones the end temperature by less than a decade.)

nt

what is the greater threat to people in impoverished countries, the temperature rising a few degrees

A temperature rise of a few degrees will melt the polar ice caps, and completely flood Bangladesh and other low-lying areas. Where do you plan to move the 200 million people?

Insofar as it was our CO2 that caused it, the people of Bangladesh might demand to move here.

Another low-lying area is Florida. The west coast (Naples, Fort Myers, etc.) is at or even below sea level. All that very wealthy land will be permanently submerged, probably along with Miami Beach and the Florida Keys.

The only good thing about this scenario, is it is unlikely to take place for another 80 years at the present rate. I won't be alive by then to see it.

You have really bought the GW scam hook, line, and sinker. No I won't be alive 80 years from now, but I have 5 kids, and a grand baby who just might. My fear is a government that will make the good old Soviet Union look like paradise.

How come the ice at the North Pole was thicker this past winter than it has been since the 1960's? How come the Antartic is actually getting colder? How come they are finding long lost mines in the Alps that were covered by glacial ice and are just now thawing? Did the ancient people somehow sind a way to mine under glaciers?

The Earth's climate is always in flux. It is never the same one year to the next. Our CO2 levels are about 350 PPM now. They were about 5 times greater during some periods in the past. Does CO2 level increases preceede or result from warming. Evidence shows about a 50 year lag in CO2 levels AFTER warming starts.

This is my last post to you on this. I get really frustrated trying to debate a point with a true believer. I could give you any counter to any point you make and it won't make any difference.

To me, the debate is still ongoing. The stakes are way too high to just accept one point of view. I can tell you that if we happen to sink into an iceage, it will kill far more people than a few degrees of warming ever will. CROPS DON'T GROW IN THE SNOW! CO2 is good for plants, it makes the produce more.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room"
President Merkin Muffley

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assesment_Report the IPCC Fourth Assesment Report gives several "likely" scenarios that show temperature rise up to 12^oF but the the likely sea level rise is always less than two feet. I just don't see a sea level rise of 2 feet flooding that much of the planet considering that storm surges are often much larger than 2 feet and don't seem to be able to sink the state of Florida.

And by the way coastal areas cannot be below sea level. And the worlds largest producer of CO₂ is China not the US.

If enough people become convinced that both sides are using propaganda and over-blown hype,then human nature and inertia will level the playing field somewhat. A skeptical public will demand harder science from those who demand great sacrifice and also be more receptive to scientific evidence presented by those who say,"Let's not be hasty, here."

It is completely legitimate to fight fire with fire. Frankly, I've been wondering how long it would be before our side produced a movie. I don't expect large commercial success, but an opposing point of view at least needs to be available in forms other than papers, symposiums and new media reports.

The information void for nonreaders in particular needs to be addressed.

nt

He who screams the loudest if right?

Is this a principle we want to embrace?

Makes for a more interesting blog, but does it make for a better America?

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

Gore's tactics are abhorrent.

I merely applaud the use of mass distribution of visual art demonstrating the facts and science.

That is what needs to be done. Rationally. Considering all sides, but not minimizing what seems most likely at this point (which is some form of man made climate change).

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

"That is what needs to be done. Rationally. Considering all sides, but not minimizing...

what seems most likely...

at this point...

(which is some form...

of man made...

...climate change)."

So you're still out on a limb, but it's a bigger branch closer to the ground. Pretty soon, with the help of that qualifier rope, you may be out of the tree altogether;)

Obviously you are not in favor of the third world being shackled with malaria, with millions of deaths.

Do you actually buy into the fraudulent thinning-eggshell hype, that has been thoroughly debunked by scientists? No? Yes? Maybe?

So what then, is the reason you want DDT banned?

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

You might want to do a reality check.

DDT was banned in the USA and was not used to control Malaria.

DDT is still used in the 3rd-world to control malaria. What countries who choose to use and what countries who choose not to is there decision not yours.

PS the source you cited is stupid, it quotes the research of one person when there are dozens researchers that have proved that DDT is harmful to the environment, both animal and humans alike.

Try reading the entire page of a very common info and then provide me the research that disproves (other than what you provided from one discredited person) any or all points of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

hype/bs/crap in wiki.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

with DDT, but we aren't allowed to manufacture it here in the US.

The harm to the environment pales in comparison to the loss of life due to malaria in the third world.

Wikipedia is just another word for blog.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3532273.stm

"Eight years ago South Africa switched from DDT to a different type of insecticide called pyrethroids, regarded as more environmentally benign.

But within four years, mosquitoes became resistant, and the annual number of malaria cases rose tenfold.

DDT was re-introduced, and cases have fallen again.

This paralleled the experience of Madagascar, which suffered an epidemic of malaria in the late 1980s, brought on by the curtailment of DDT spraying programmes - only curbed again by its re-introduction."

"Professor Len Ritter, from Guelph University, is executive director of the Canadian Network of Toxicology Centres, which compiled a major report on DDT and related substances for the United Nations.

Malaria is a major problem in sub-Saharan Africa
"I hate to say conclusively yes or no because these matters are always subject to interpretation; but I would say on the totality of the weight of the evidence, I could not conclude that DDT poses a significant risk of cancer," he told Earth Files.

Professor Ritter's report came to a similar conclusion regarding the other suggested harmful effects of DDT - as a disrupter of the human immune system, of hormone levels, as a cause of birth defects."

Read the whole article and oh by the way I could find a hundred more....DDT is not killing anyone it is saving their lives....but what do you care that's another country.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

This is enough for me. The sources are provided on the page referenced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

Toxicity

Acute

* DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the US National Toxicological Program[41] and "moderately hazardous" by WHO, based on the rat oral LD50 of 113 mg/kg.[13] It is not considered to be acutely toxic, and in fact it has been applied directly to clothes or used in soap.[42] DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning.[43]

Chronic

* Occupational exposure to DDT was associated with reduced verbal attention, visuomotor speed, sequencing, and with increased neuropsychological and psychiatric symptoms in a dose-response pattern (ie, per year of DDT application) in retired workers aged 55–70 years in Costa Rica. DDT or DDE concentrations were not determined in this study.[44]
* In one 1969 study, 24 cynomolgus monkeys and rhesus monkeys fed up to 16 mg/kg/day of DDT for 130 months were compared to a control group of 17 monkeys. Six animals in the dosed group died, and the study demonstrated "clear evidence of hepatic and CNS toxicity following long-term DDT administration." Although the exposed group developed two malignancies and three benign tumors, compared to zero in the control group, statistically this is still "inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates."[45]
* In an early study, humans voluntarily ingested 35 mg of DDT daily for about two years, and were then tracked for several years afterward. Although there was "suggestive evidence of adverse liver effects", no other adverse effects were observed.[46]
* Farmers exposed to DDT occupationally have an increased incidence of non-allergic asthma. [47]
* Organochlorine compounds in general and DDE specifically have been linked to diabetes.[48] A study of Native Americans exposed to DDE primarily from eating contaminated fish found that elevated blood DDE levels were associated with an increased incidence of diabetes. These results are consistent with previous studies on diabetes incidence and organochlorine exposure.[49] A recent study of Mexican Americans yielded similar results.[50]

Cancer

* In 1987 the EPA classified DDT as a class B2 probable human carcinogen based on "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." Regarding the human carcinogenicity data, they stated "The existing epidemiological data are inadequate. Autopsy studies relating tissue levels of DDT to cancer incidence have yielded conflicting results." [51]
* A study of malaria workers who handled DDT occupationally found an elevated risk of cancers of the liver and biliary tract. Another study has found a correlation between DDE and liver cancer in white men, but not for women or black men. An association between DDT exposure and pancreatic cancer has been demonstrated in a few studies, but other studies have found no association. Several studies have looked for associations between DDT and multiple myeloma, and testicular, prostate, endometrial, and colorectal cancers, but none conclusively demonstrated any association.[21]
* A Canadian study from 2007 found a positive association between DDE and non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.[52]
* A recent study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concluded that DDE exposure to may be associated with testicular cancer. The incidence of seminoma in men with the highest blood levels of DDE was almost double that of men with the lowest levels of DDE.[53][54]

Breast cancer

Several studies have looked for associations between breast cancer and DDT exposure. Almost all studies have measured DDT or DDE blood levels at the time of breast cancer diagnosis or after. While individual studies have yielded conflicting results, taken as a whole, the studies of this design "do not support the hypothesis that exposure to DDT is an important risk factor for breast cancer."[55] These types of studies have been extensively reviewed:

* In 2007, the journal Cancer published a review of all of the epidemiological studies on breast cancer and DDT and DDE published between 2000 and 2006. The authors state that "Positive findings for well-controlled studies in the early 1990s of associations between breast cancer risk and the insecticide DDT, its breakdown product DDE, and PCBs prompted additional study. Snedeker reviewed studies of DDT/DDE and dieldrin, concluding that existing research strategies provided conflicting and mostly negative evidence…Updating the picture to 2006 provides…essentially unchanged conclusions for DDT/DDE…[I]n light of these findings, additional study of incident breast cancer in association with biological measures of DDE/DDT levels near the time of diagnosis is not a promising avenue."[56]

* A 2005 review in The Lancet, states that "In a study in 1993, 37 breast cancer patients had higher serum DDE concentrations (11.8 μg/L) than controls (7.7 μg/L), and results from several subsequent studies supported such an association. However, large epidemiological studies and subsequent pooled and meta-analyses failed to confirm the association."[21]

* A 2004 meta-analysis of studies on the association of p,p'-DDE and breast cancer concluded that "Overall, these results should be regarded as a strong evidence to discard the putative relationship between p,p'-DDE and breast cancer risk. Nevertheless, the exposure to DDT during critical periods of human development—from conception to adolescence—and individual variations in metabolizing enzymes of DDT or its derivatives are still important areas to be researched in regard to breast cancer development in adulthood.[57]

A new study in Environmental Health Perspectives found a strong association between exposure to the p,p-isomer of DDT early in life and breast cancer later in life. Exposure to the o,p'-isomer was negatively correlated with breast cancer (i.e. a protective effect was observed), and no association was observed for DDE. Unlike the studies discussed in the reviews cited above, this was prospective study in which blood samples were collected from young California mothers in the 1960s while DDT was still in use, and their breast cancer status was then tracked. (As discussed above, previous studies measured exposure more recently, long after DDT was banned in the US.) In addition to suggesting that exposure to the p,p-isomer of DDT is the more significant risk factor of breast cancer, the study also suggests that the timing of exposure is critical. For the subset of women born more than 14 years prior to the introduction of DDT into US agriculture, there was no association between DDT levels and breast cancer. However, for women born more recently—and thus exposed earlier in life—the most p,p-DDT exposed third of women had a fivefold increase in breast cancer incidence over the least exposed third, after correcting for the protective effect of o,p-DDT.[55][58]

Developmental and reproductive toxicity

DDT and its breakdown product DDE, like other organochlorines, have been shown to have xenoestrogenic activity; meaning they are chemically similar enough to estrogens to trigger hormonal responses in animals. This endocrine disrupting activity has been observed when DDT is used in laboratory studies involving mice and rats as test subjects, and available epidemiological evidence indicates that these effects may be occurring in humans as a result of DDT exposure. In areas where DDT is used for malaria control, infants can be exposed via breastmilk in levels that exceed the W.H.O's acceptable daily intake value for DDT.[59] [60]

* A review article in The Lancet concludes that, "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning … toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation."[21]

* Human epidemiological studies suggest that DDT exposure is a risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, and may harm a mother's ability to breast feed.[61] Some researchers argue that these effects may cause increases infant deaths in areas where DDT is used for malaria control, and thus offset any benefit derived from its anti-malarial effects.[62][63][64] A recent study, however, failed to confirm the association between exposure and difficulty breastfeeding.[65]

* Several recent studies demonstrate a link between in utero exposure to DDT or DDE and developmental neurotoxicity in humans. For example, a 2006 study conducted by the University of California, Berkeley suggests children who have been exposed to DDT while in the womb have a greater chance of experiencing development problems,[66] and other studies have found that even low-levels of DDT or DDE in umbilical cord serum at birth are associated with decreased attention at infancy[67] and decreased cognitive skills at 4 years of age.[68] Similarly, Mexican researchers have demonstrated a link between DDE exposure in the first trimester of pregnancy and retarded psychomotor development.[69]

* A 2007 study documented decreases in semen quality among South African men from communities where DDT is used to combat endemic malaria. The researchers found statistically significant correlations between increased levels of DDT or DDE in blood plasma and decreases in several measures of semen quality including ejaculate volume, certain motility parameters, and sperm count.[70] The same researchers reported similar results in 2006 from a study of men in Mexico.[71] A review of earlier studies noted that "Studies of populations with a much lower exposure than that seen in current malaria-endemic areas have shown only weak, inconsistent associations between DDE and testosterone amounts, semen quality, and sperm DNA damage."[21]

* One recent study suggests that women exposed to DDT while in the womb have more difficulty getting pregnant as adults than non-exposed women. On the other hand, prenatal DDE exposure increased the probability of pregnancy.[72]

* DDT exposure is associated with early pregnancy loss, a type of miscarriage. A prospective cohort study of Chinese textile workers found "a positive, monotonic, exposure-response association between preconception serum total DDT and the risk of subsequent early pregnancy losses." [73] The median serum DDE level of study group was lower than that typically observed in women living in homes sprayed with DDT, suggesting that these finding are relevant to the debate about DDT and malaria control. [74]

* A case-control study of congenital hypothyroidism in Japan concluded that in utero DDT exposure may affect thyroid hormone levels and "play an important role in the incidence and/or causation of cretinism."[75]

Is malaria an issue there? We would you be willing to sacrifice one of your two of your family members for the cause?

Fortuna Favet Fortibus

He probably thinks we should be teaching third-worlders to breed dragonflies.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Delivering Dead Terrorists

Another stupid comment, there are alternatives maybe not as effective but less hazardous to the population and to wildlife. DDT is not a panacea and has its own drawbacks and limitations (like mosquito resistance) try reading sometimes,

DDT use against malaria

The World Health Organization estimates there are between 300 million and 500 million cases of malaria every year, resulting in more than 1 million deaths,[76] with about 90% of these deaths occurring in Africa, mostly to children under the age of 5.

Most prior use of DDT was in agriculture, but the controlled use of DDT continues to this day for the purposes of public health. Current use for disease control requires only a small fraction of the amounts previously used in agriculture, and at these levels the pesticide is much less likely to cause environmental problems. Residual house spraying involves the treatment of all interior walls and ceilings with insecticide, and is particularly effective against mosquitoes, which favour indoor resting before or after feeding. Advocated as the mainstay of malaria eradication programmes in the late 1950s and 1960s, DDT remains a major component of control programmes in southern African states, though many countries have abandoned or curtailed their spraying activities. South Africa, Swaziland, Mozambique and Ecuador are examples of countries that have very successfully reduced malaria infestations with DDT.

Indeed, the problems facing health officials in their fight against malaria neither begin nor end with DDT. Experts tie the spread of malaria to numerous factors, including a chronic lack of funds in the countries worst hit by malaria, and the resistance of the malaria parasite itself to the drugs traditionally used to treat the illness.[77] According to Richard Tren, "Malaria surged through Africa in the 1990s, fueled by resistance to chloroquine and other historically effective drugs."[78]

The growth of resistance to DDT and the fear that DDT may be harmful both to humans and the environment led donor countries and various national governments to restrict or curtail the use of DDT in vector control. At the same time, use of DDT as an agricultural insecticide was often unrestricted, and restrictions were often evaded, especially in developing countries where malaria is rife, so that resistance continued to grow.[19]

A commentary on the current state of global malaria control was published in the May 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors identify "3 critical factors that are currently absent or in too short supply" for making progress in the fight against malaria: "leadership, management, and money," while making no mention of restrictions limiting the use of DDT. They also single out resistance of the malaria parasite to chloroquine as the cause of increasing malaria mortality in sub-Saharan Africa, not restrictions on DDT.[79]

Today there is debate among professionals working on malaria control concerning the appropriate role of DDT. The range of disagreement is relatively narrow: Few believe either that large scale spraying should be resumed or that the use of DDT should be abandoned altogether. The debate focuses on the relative merits of DDT and alternative pesticides as well as complementary use of interior wall spraying, insecticide-treated bed-nets, and other mosquito control techniques.

Since the appointment of Arata Kochi as head of its anti-malaria division, the WHO has shifted its position in this controversy, from primary reliance on bed-nets to a policy more favorable to DDT. Until an announcement made on 16 September 2006, the policy had recommended indoor spraying of insecticides in areas of seasonal or episodic transmission of malaria, but a new policy also advocates it where continuous, intense transmission of the disease causes the most deaths.[80] In 2007, the WHO clarified its position, saying it is "very much concerned with health consequences from use of DDT" and reaffirmed its commitment to phasing out the use of DDT.[81]

Overall effectiveness of DDT against malaria

In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. Thereafter the program was halted, and malaria in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. Although the country resumed spraying with DDT, many of the local mosquitoes had acquired resistance to DDT in the interim, presumably because of the continued use of DDT for crop protection, so the program was not nearly as effective as it had been before. Switching to the more-expensive malathion in 1977 reduced the malaria infection rate to 3,000 by 2004. A recent study notes, "DDT and Malathion are no longer recommended since An. culicifacies and An. subpictus has been found resistant."[82]

A 2004 editorial in the British Medical Journal argues that the campaign against malaria is failing, that funding of malaria control should therefore be increased, and that use of DDT should be considered since DDT has "a remarkable safety record when used in small quantities for indoor spraying in endemic regions."[83]

One insecticide supply company states on its website:

DDT is still one of the first and most commonly used insecticides for residual spraying, because of its low cost, high effectiveness, persistence and relative safety to humans. [...] In the past several years, we supplied DDT 75% WDP to Madagascar, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, South Africa, Namibia, Solomon Island, Papua New Guinea, Algeria, Thailand, and Myanmar for Malaria Control project, and won a good reputation from WHO and relevant countries' government.[84]

According to DDT advocate Donald Roberts, malaria cases increased in South America after countries in that continent stopped using DDT.[29] Other mosquito-borne diseases are also on the rise. Roger Bate claims that until the 1970s, DDT was used to eradicate the Aedes aegypti mosquito from most tropical regions of the Americas. The reinvasion of Aedes aegypti since has brought devastating outbreaks of dengue fever, dengue hemorrhagic fever, and a renewed threat of urban yellow fever.[85]

Mosquito resistance to DDT

Although the publication of Silent Spring undoubtedly influenced the U.S. ban on DDT in 1972, the reduced usage of DDT in malaria eradication began the decade before because of the emergence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes. Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied Anti-Malaria campaign, observed in 1956 that eradication programs had to be wary of relying on DDT for too long as "resistance has appeared [after] six or seven years."[18]

In some areas DDT has lost much of its effectiveness, especially in areas such as India where outdoor transmission is the predominant form. According to one article by V.P. Sharma, "The declining effectiveness of DDT is a result of several factors which frequently operate in tandem. The first and the most important factor is vector resistance to DDT. All populations of the main vector, An. culicifacies have become resistant to DDT." In India, with its outdoor sleeping habits and frequent night duties, "the excito-repellent effect of DDT, often reported useful in other countries, actually promotes outdoor transmission."[86]

Due to this DDT resistance, in Sri Lanka, parts of India, Pakistan, Turkey and Central America, DDT has already been replaced by organophosphate or carbamate insecticides, e.g. malathion or bendiocarb. [87]

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.[88] Parasitology journal articles confirm that malarial vector mosquitoes have become resistant to DDT and HCH in most parts of India.[89] Nevertheless, DDT is still manufactured and used in India.[90] One study concludes "The overall results of the study revealed that DDT is still a viable insecticide in indoor residual spraying owing to its effectivity in well supervised spray operation and high excito-repellency factor."[91]

The initial appearance of this resistance was largely due to the much greater quantity of DDT which had been used for agricultural spraying, rather than the relatively insignificant amounts used for disease prevention. According to one study which attempted to quantify the lives saved due to banning agricultural use of DDT and thereby slowing the spread of DDT resistance: "Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[19]

Advocates for continuing use of DDT against malaria state that "Limited use of DDT for public health has continued to be effective in areas where it is used inside homes. As DDT's chief property is repellency, mosquitoes often avoid the DDT treated homes altogether. In so doing, they avoid the exposure that promotes resistance as well. 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. As the various Departments of Health that use it carefully control DDT use, it is unlikely that resistance will emerge as a major problem."[92]

Studies of malaria-vector mosquitoes trapped while exiting windows in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa found susceptibility to 4% DDT (the WHO susceptibility standard), in 63% of the samples, compared to the average of 86.5% in the same species caught in the open. The authors concluded that "Finding DDT resistance in the vector An. arabiensis, close to the area where we previously reported pyrethroid-resistance in the vector An. funestus Giles, indicates an urgent need to develop a strategy of insecticide resistance management for the malaria control programmes of southern Africa." [93]

The avoidance of DDT-sprayed walls by mosquitoes is sometimes touted as a beneficial aspect of DDT.[91] For example, a 2007 study published in PLoS ONE reported that DDT-resistant mosquitoes still avoided DDT-treated huts, while entering huts treated with other insecticides to which they were not resistant. The researchers argued that DDT was the best pesticide for use in IRS (even though it did not afford the most protection from mosquitos out of the three test chemicals) because the others pesticides worked primarily by killing or irritating mosquitoes—modes of action the authors presume mosquitoes will develop resistance to.[94] Others have argued that the avoidance of DDT sprayed walls by mosquitoes is detrimental to the actual eradication of the disease.[95] Unlike other insecticides such as pyrethroids, DDT requires a long period of contact before mosquitoes pick up a lethal dose; however its irritant property makes them fly off before this occurs. "For these reasons, when comparisons have been made, better malaria control has generally been achieved with pyrethroids than with DDT." [87]

Residents' resistance to use of DDT

In areas where resistance from residents prevents a high percentage of the homes being effectively sprayed, the effectiveness of the intervention is greatly reduced.[87][18] Many residents resist spraying of DDT for various reasons. For instance, the smell lingers,[96] and DDT leaves a stain on the walls.[97][95][87][96][98] While that stain makes it easier to check whether the room has been sprayed it causes some villagers to avoid spraying of their homes [18][98][99][87] or to resurface the wall, which eliminates the residual insecticidal effect of the spraying.[95][98][99] "Pyrethroids such as deltamethrin and lambda-cyhalothrin are … much more acceptable to householders because they leave no visible deposit on walls… therefore rates of refusal of spraying by householders are lower with pyrethroids than with DDT."[87]

In addition, DDT is not suitable for this type of spraying in Western-style plastered or painted walls, only traditional dwellings with unpainted walls made of mud, sticks, dung, thatch, clay, or cement.[93][96][99][98]As rural areas of South Africa become more prosperous, there is a shift towards Western style housing, leaving fewer homes suitable for DDT spraying, and necessitating the use of alternative insecticides.[99]

Other villagers object to DDT spraying because it does not kill cockroaches[87] or bedbugs;[95] rather, it excites such pests making them more active,[96][99][98][97][18] so that often use of another insecticide is additionally required.[99] Pyrethroids such as deltamethrin and lambdacyhalothrin, on the other hand, are more acceptable to residents because they kill these nuisance insects as well as mosquitoes.[87] DDT has also been known to kill beneficial insects, such as wasps that kill caterpillars that, unchecked, destroy thatched roofs.[18]

As a result, says Dr. Avertino Barreto, chief of infectious disease control in Mozambique, resistance to DDT spraying is "homegrown", not due to "pressure from environmentalists". "They only want us to use DDT on poor, rural black people," he says. "So whoever suggests DDT use, I say, 'Fine, I'll start spraying in your house first.' "[96]

Human exposure associated with DDT spraying for disease vectors

In the low income areas where malaria eradication is necessary, it is almost impossible to ensure that DDT intended for disease prevention does not get diverted to use on crops, on a totally unregulated basis. "The consequent insecticidal residues in crops at levels unacceptable for the export trade have been an important factor in recent bans of DDT for malaria control in several tropical countries".[87] Adding to this problem is a lack of skilled personnel and supervision.[95]

Evidence for exposure to DDT is seen in South Africa[100][101], where in contrast to areas where DDT use has ceased (even where it was used heavily), in areas where DDT is currently in use ostensibly in small amounts for malaria prevention only, DDT levels in men and women were significantly higher than the allowable daily intake.[98] Breast milk from regions where DDT is used for malaria control contains enough DDT to greatly exceed the allowable daily intake of breast feeding infants.[102][60] These levels have been associated with neurological abnormalities in babies ingesting relatively large quantities of DDT in their milk[87] although toxicity via this mode of intake has not been proved.[98]

Some researchers have suggested that the negative health effects of exposure to DDT might outweigh the health benefits afforded by anti-malarial properties. For example, scientists with the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences argued in The Lancet that "Although DDT is generally not toxic to human beings and was banned mainly for ecological reasons, subsequent research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning, abrogating the benefit of reducing infant mortality from malaria...DDT might be useful in controlling malaria, but the evidence of its adverse effects on human health needs appropriate research on whether it achieves a favourable balance of risk versus benefit."[21]

Criticism of restrictions on DDT use

There are claims that restrictions on the use of DDT in vector control have resulted in substantial numbers of unnecessary deaths due to malaria. Estimates for the number of deaths that have been caused by an alleged lack of availability of DDT range from hundreds of thousands, according to Nicholas Kristof,[103] to much higher figures. Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007 that "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children."[104] Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death,[105] argues that the epidemic of malaria in Africa not only takes the lives of 2 million people a year, but leaves those who survive malaria unable to contribute to the economy while sick and more vulnerable to subsequent diseases that might kill them.

These arguments have been called "outrageous" by former WHO scientist Socrates Litsios, and May Berenbaum, a professor of entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, says that "to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible."[106] In May 2008 article in Prospect, John Quiggin and Tim Lambert write that "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted."[107]

It has been suggested that DDT treatments were used long enough to eliminate insect-borne diseases in the West, but now that it is only needed in poorer nations in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, it has been banned or otherwise restricted. Some environmental groups have been strongly criticized for trying to ban all use of DDT. According to Amir Attaran, many environmentalist groups fought against the public health exception of DDT in the 2001 Stockholm Convention, against the objections of third world governments and many malaria researchers. "Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibility and over 300 other environmental organizations advocated for a total DDT ban, starting as early as 2007 in some cases."[108] In an opinion piece in Nature Medicine he strongly objected to what would have been a de facto ban and stated: "Environmentalists in rich, developed countries gain nothing from DDT, and thus small risks felt at home loom larger than health benefits for the poor tropics. More than 200 environmental groups, including Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the World Wildlife Fund, actively condemn DDT for being "a current source of significant injury to...humans."[109]

Criticisms of a ban on DDT often refer specifically to the 1972 US ban (with the implication that this constituted a worldwide ban), while ignoring that DDT has not been banned for public health use in most areas of the world where malaria is endemic.[110] Reference is also often made to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring even though she never pushed for a ban on DDT. In fact, she devoted a page of the book to consideration of the relationship between DDT and malarial mosquitoes, with cognizance of the development of resistance in the mosquito, concluding:

It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting [is the advice given in Holland by Dr Briejer in his capacity as director of the Plant Protection Service]. Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity."

However, the fact that DDT is not formally banned in developing nations does not necessarily mean that those nations have the option to use it. Developing nations are typically heavily dependent on aid from agencies that made the aid contingent upon non-usage of DDT. The British Medical Journal of March 11, 2000, reports that the use of DDT in Mozambique "was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT."[111] Many African nations have been dissuaded from to using DDT in part because the European Union has said that their agricultural exports may not be accepted if spraying was "widespread."[112]

According to the USAID website, "USAID has never had a “policy” as such either “for” or “against” DDT for IRS. The real change in the past two years has been a new interest and emphasis on the use of Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) in general – with DDT or any other insecticide – as an effective malaria prevention strategy in tropical Africa."[113] But the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria maintains that USAID and some other international donor organizations have refused to fund public health DDT programs.[114] Similarly, Roger Bate of AFM asserts that many countries have been coming under pressure from international health and environment agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants, and that Belize and Bolivia have gone on record to say that they gave in to pressure on this issue from the US Agency for International Development.[115] USAID's Kent R. Hill states that the agency has been misrepresented:

USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted.[116]

However, USAID "favored" DDT alternatives in its funding:

Contrary to popular belief, USAID does not "ban" the use of DDT in its malaria control programs. From a purely technical point of view in terms of effective methods of addressing malaria, USAID and others have not seen DDT as a high priority component of malaria programs for practical reasons. In many cases, indoor residual spraying of DDT, or any other insecticide, is not cost-effective and is very difficult to maintain. In most countries in Africa where USAID provides support to malaria control programs, it has been judged more cost-effective and appropriate to put US government funds into preventing malaria through insecticide-treated nets, which are every bit as effective in preventing malaria and more feasible in countries that do not have existing, strong indoor spraying programs.[117]

Alternatives to DDT

DDT versus other insecticides

Those who advocate for increased use of DDT claim that the alternatives to DDT are generally more expensive, more toxic to humans and not always as effective at controlling malaria and insect-borne diseases, and that the petrochemical companies which patent those alternatives push(ed) for DDT's ban simply for their own profits; DDT had entered the public domain, their patented insecticides have not. Actual data on the cost-effectiveness of DDT versus other insecticides and/or means of fighting malaria is, in fact, lacking. One complicating factor is that the relative costs of various measures vary, depending on geographical location and ease of access, the habits of the particular mosquitoes prevalent in each area, the degrees of resistance to various pesticides exhibited by the mosquitoes, and the habits and compliance of the population, among other factors.

Organophosphate or carbamate insecticides, e.g. malathion or bendiocarb, are considerably more expensive than DDT, and malathion requires more frequent respraying. Pyrethroids such as deltamethrin and lambdacyhalothrin are also more expensive than DDT, but due to their much greater coverage per unit weight, the net cost per house is about the same.[87]

There are some insecticide alternatives to DDT, including methoxychlor and pyrethroids. The environmental and health effects of alternatives are also under scrutiny. Under the Stockholm Convention, these are issue to be addressed when investigating and promoting alternative chemicals. A recent study has found that DDT as well as pyrethroid residues, such as permethrin and deltamethrin, were present in breast milk from a malaria controlled area in South Africa. The DDT was derived from malaria control, but the pattern of pyrethoid pollution indicated exposure via agricultural use, where mothers frequently work in cotton fields, as well as from domestic use of insecticide dusts in vegetable gardens.[118]

DDT versus non-chemical vector control

Before DDT, malaria was successfully eradicated or curtailed in several tropical areas by removing or poisoning the breeding grounds of the mosquitoes or the aquatic habitats of the larva stages, for example by filling or applying oil to places with standing water. These methods have seen little application in Africa for more than half a century.[119]

The relative effectiveness of IRS (with DDT or alternative insecticides) versus other malaria control techniques (e.g. bednets or prompt access to anti-malarial drugs) varies greatly and is highly dependent on local conditions.[20]

A study by the World Health Organization released in January of 2008 found that mass distribution of insecticide-treated mosquito nets and artemisinin based drugs cut malaria deaths in half in Rwanda and Ethiopia, countries with very high malaria burdens. IRS with DDT was determined to not have played an important role in the reduction of mortality.[120]

Vietnam is an example of a country that has seen a continued decline in malaria cases after switching in 1991 from a poorly funded DDT-based campaign to a program based on prompt treatment, bednets, and the use of pyrethroid group insecticides. Deaths from malaria dropped by 97%.[121]

In Mexico, the use of a range of effective and affordable chemical and non-chemical strategies against malaria has been so successful that the Mexican DDT manufacturing plant ceased production voluntarily, due to lack of demand.[122] Furthermore, while the increased numbers of malaria victims since DDT usage fell out of favor would, at first glance, suggest a 1:1 correlation, many other factors are known to have contributed to the rise in cases.

A review of fourteen studies on the subject in sub-Saharan Africa, covering insecticide-treated nets, residual spraying, chemoprophylaxis for children, chemoprophylaxis or intermittent treatment for pregnant women, a hypothetical vaccine, and changing the first line drug for treatment, found decision making limited by the gross lack of information on the costs and effects of many interventions, the very small number of cost-effectiveness analyses available, the lack of evidence on the costs and effects of packages of measures, and the problems in generalizing or comparing studies that relate to specific settings and use different methodologies and outcome measures. The two cost-effectiveness estimates of DDT residual spraying examined were not found to provide an accurate estimate of the cost-effectiveness of DDT spraying; furthermore, the resulting estimates may not be good predictors of cost-effectiveness in current programmes.[123]

However, a study in Thailand found the cost per malaria case prevented of DDT spraying ($1.87 US) to be 21% greater than the cost per case prevented of lambdacyhalothrin-treated nets ($1.54 US),[124] at very least casting some doubt on the unexamined assumption that DDT was the most cost-effective measure to use in all cases. The director of Mexico's malaria control program finds similar results, declaring that it is 25% cheaper for Mexico to spray a house with synthetic pyrethroids than with DDT.[122] However, another study in South Africa found generally lower costs for DDT spraying than for impregnated nets.[125]

A more comprehensive approach to measuring cost-effectiveness or efficacy of malarial control would not only measure the cost in dollars of the project, as well as the number of people saved, but would also take into account the negative aspects of insecticide use on human health and ecological damage. One preliminary study regarding the effect of DDT found that it is likely the detriment to human health approaches or exceeds the beneficial reductions in malarial cases, except perhaps in malarial epidemic situations. It is similar to the earlier mentioned study regarding estimated theoretical infant mortality caused by DDT and subject to the criticism also mentioned earlier.[126]

A study in the Solomon Islands found that "although impregnated bed nets cannot entirely replace DDT spraying without substantial increase in incidence, their use permits reduced DDT spraying."[127]

A comparison of four successful programs against malaria in Brazil, India, Eritrea, and Vietnam does not endorse any single strategy but instead states "Common success factors included conducive country conditions, a targeted technical approach using a package of effective tools, data-driven decision-making, active leadership at all levels of government, involvement of communities, decentralized implementation and control of finances, skilled technical and managerial capacity at national and sub-national levels, hands-on technical and programmatic support from partner agencies, and sufficient and flexible financing."[128]

DDT resistant mosquitoes have generally proved susceptible to pyrethroids. Thus far, pyrethroid resistance in Anopheles has not been a major problem.[87]

When you're mindlessly copying and pasting without attribution, you're in no position to call other people's comments stupid.

Watch the copyright laws.

HTML Help for Red Staters

responding to my stupid comment. I guess you've been working on these all afternoon. Just skimming the surface of your primer, I still can't see why you favor a ban on DDT. I guess I need the condensed version.

wholesale lawlessness
he'll throw us a smelly bone
democrat white house

"DDT's bad, um'kay"

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room"
President Merkin Muffley

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room"
President Merkin Muffley

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room"
President Merkin Muffley

I wonder if that domain is taken? :P

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

Like say, cute puppies.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO