Yes, malaria is more of a problem today because of Western interference.
It has increased in developing countries. Activities such as
deforestation add to local heat increase, rechannelling of waterways for
commercial farming or other industries like mining or chemical
production reduce the flow of fresh running/flushing waters which would
have otherwise been washing away the vector's larvae, or water sources
have been depleted altogether. Irrigation ditches for commercial farming
has increased larvae numbers, and people building huts and homes closer
to the water sources for the sake of being near their work has brought
about a situation common to the epidemic outbreaks. Corporate solutions
are applied -- for short term gain.
Whereas natural beneficials and protective barriers once kept this
disease under control, opening up the spaces between infected areas has
contributed to its spread. Corporate infiltration has typically brought
about increased poverty, and with poverty comes disease. Bush's/Pharma's
heavy handed drug control policies prevented millions from getting
cheaper generic drugs for numerous diseases, even where countries formed
policies to promote generic drug use. Most significantly, with respect
to Pharma, is the fact that research on drugs for tropical diseases is
practically nonexistent because no one can afford the alleged costs.
First, the budget is spent on advertising, then lifestyle drugs (15
Viagra types now available), then actual research. Most real research
was performed by government funded studies back in the 80's for cancer
studies, then was sold (practically given over) to Pharma, putting to
question IPR of many of today's expensive products. So, Pharma can
exploit these regions to produce chemicals, exploit the people for
testing, and pollute their waters with their industrial pursuits, but
utterly fail them to come up with affordable medical help. One site I
visited called this the "apartheid of pharmacology".
I decided to Google for possible new studies on alternatives to DDT use,
and got some very interesting results. Not well known, but presented by
the United Nations Environment Programmes, (UNEP) the FAO and WHO ,
under the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of
Chemicals (IOMC), was a 91 page document called:
Reducing and Eliminating the use of Persistent Organic
Pesticides
Guidance on alternative strategies for sustainable pest
and vector management
Geneva 2002
found at : http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pdf/redelipops/redelipops.pdf
<http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pdf/redelipops/redelipops.pdf>
This was a study focused on IPM/IVM, Integrated Pest
Management/Integrated Vector Management methods, focused on the
reduction of pesticide use. The thrust of this international movement is
the fact that pesticide resistance is inevitable and pesticide use
ultimately increases pestilence.
Within, there was a wealth of information, all pointing to the
importance of eliminating pesticide use in favour of natural
environmental support structures. Education and involvement of affected
people was key, particularly regular home inspections for still water
sources and better knowledge of proper water storage. Flushing streams
through seasonal water releases from upstream reservoirs was most
effective, because most high larvae counts will be found in shallow
pools below 20 cm.. The introduction of regional beneficials like
Larvivorous fish, especially guppies, and parasitic nematodes of
mosquito larvae, and also the introduction of copepods -- a crustaceous
predator -- were very effective.
Amongst the recommendations: Limiting treatment areas to the most urgent
foci. Use of pesticide with the lowest persistence, esp. in agricultural
applications. Monitoring for early resistance of pesticides, if applied
in serious outbreaks, was important so that a different pesticide could
be applied. Leaving refugia untreated allowed beneficials to feast on
untreated prey. Pesticide rotation, where urgent, within the context of
IPM/IVM programme management.
Below is a little snip from one of five successful case studies -- all
well worth reading.
60
Alternatives to POPs pesticides - a guidance document
water issued from the Mahaweli System. The Yan Oya stream is the feeder
canal to
the Huruluwewa watershed. The main malaria vector in this area is Anopheles
culicifacies. The main breeding habitats are the stream-bed pools that
remain when
water levels are low.
A significant risk determinant of malaria transmission is the distance
between
houses and the stream. At a system-wide level, villages closer than 500m
to the
stream had higher vector densities and a higher incidence of malaria.
The study
showed a relation between the stream water depth and vector breeding. When
water levels in the stream are low, more stream-bed pools form and once
the water
level is below 20 cm, the number of larvae increases significantly.
Detailed analyses
of the water dynamics of the entire watershed area followed. Models
showed that
with the current flow in the stream, water levels are low during two
periods of the
year, resulting in high densities of mosquito larvae. If the stream
would be flushed
regularly during these dry periods, breeding habitats of mosquitoes would be
disturbed, reducing larval densities. The most viable management option
was a
redistribution of existing water flows in order to maintain a water
depth sufficient to
discourage the breeding of the vector.
Cost analyses were done comparing the water management measures with vector
control interventions such as indoor residual spraying, mosquito nets
and chemical
larviciding, as well as with curative measures (hospitals, mobile
clinics, village-level
treatment centres) in the area. These showed that flushing streams
through seasonal
water releases from upstream reservoirs would be the most efficient
malaria control
measure.
Also: I Googled alternative treatments for malaria. One site I found at:
http://www.blueturtlegroup.com <http://www.blueturtlegroup.com>
advertised a herbal remedy for malaria called Derma200, a sublingual
spray, which helps to expel liver flukes for all strains of malaria, and
is allegedly safe for infants and pregnant women. They claim that there
are no harmful side effects (unlike pharmaceuticals) list all
ingredients, and say that it can be used at any stage of the disease,
with a preventive factor designed to build immunity. They claim to have
a lung spray for emphysema, and pancreatic support for Diabetes, too.
I'm sure there are many such herbals, whose widespread distribution is
discouraged by Pharma. But, herbals would have been widely used in the
past by villagers in infected areas. I couldn't help but notice that DDT
indoor spraying targets wealthier people with actual homes, rather than
more vulnerable huts -- where the poorest reside.
Thanks, Lawry, that was very educational!
Natalia
Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
Natalia - can you say more about: "The biggest problem in the tropics
is mostly western corporate interference applying their solutions to
something that used to take care of itself" -especially the 'used to
take care of itself" part?
Is malaria more of a problem then before Western interference?
Thanks for a very interesting discussion.
Lawry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Darryl or Natalia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 3:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Silent Spring is a case study in the tragedy
of goodintentions
Darryl says that if there are such studies, they are not well known.
Given the success of beneficials introduction in so many other
applications, even good old Prince Albert's solution of introducing
sparrow hawks to get rid of the Crystal Palace's trapped birds, it's
hard to believe that it hasn't been tried. It is likely that, as with
North American efforts, much is done on a local scale that we don't
realize because the problem never spirals into epidemic proportions.
We tend to hear mostly about western solutions because they now
control more affected regions' economies.
The very best beneficials are going to be whatever is in the affected
region that feeds on the mosquito larvae. Dragonfly nymphs for sure,
possibly water beetles or boatmen. Introduction of beneficials must be
frequent under warm conditions. Mosquito nets are effective, and would
spare millions of lives just on the basis of low counts of actual
malaria carrying mosquitoes. It's exposure to high numbers which
increase chances of infection.
The biggest problem in the tropics is mostly western corporate
interference applying their solutions to something that used to take
care of itself, but has fallen into their lap because of corporate
need to infiltrate these regions for profit. They change the delicate
balance, then miscreate the solutions in the only way they know how --
with fast-acting chemicals that result in eradication of the
beneficials that best address the problem, thereby increasing numbers
of the anopheles genus. Science will never eradicate this fluke; it's
here for the same reason as everything else which has life. We can
only act and react responsibly.
Natalia
Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
Very interesting, Natalia.
What kind of beneficials might work in tropical areas? Would they be a
one-time application, or periodic application? I'm sure experiments
have been tried with this approach. Do you have a sense of how well
they worked, or whether they had negative consequences?
Many thanks....
Lawry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Darryl or Natalia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 4:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Silent Spring is a case study in the tragedy
of goodintentions
My first thought in response to the malaria problem was that Unicef
should stop charging people US $5.00 for mosquito nets. This is
usually cost prohibitive for people whose annual income may not exceed
same, or whose monthly food allowance would have to be spent.
Donations were supposed to have paid for these nets, but, as usual,
administrative costs come first. What it likely means is that there is
a huge surplus of nets doing no one any good, and people die needlessly.
I just gave Darryl a call on this topic, having remembered a previous
discussion about DDT use on this list.
Darryl Beschell has, as some of you know, worked extensively with
farmers and government to reduce or avoid pesticide use. His first
response was that DDT use, typically applied in areas of still water
where the malaria-carrying mosquito breeds, also wipes out all
beneficials (predators) which would otherwise be feasting upon the
vector's larvae, therefore eventually making the problem far worse.
DDT also kills amphibians in the water, effects the birds and other
wildlife using the ponds, and though it doesn't cause cancer, can
bring about one of many mammalian health concerns such as asthma,
allergies, reproductive irregularities and also interferes with
calcium uptake -- hence, among many concerns -- the poor quality of
bird's egg shells .
If you don't eradicate the beneficials, there'll be fewer malaria
carrying mosquitos. Introducing more water dwelling or visiting
beneficials to these areas would be the least harmful answer. Draining
still water is another less toxic solution, since DDT use would kill
off life in the ponds anyway.
Natalia
Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
I don't think Carson pretended to be a chemical research scientist.
Above all, she gave the alarm, and I think her essential thesis - that
infusing the food stream and environment with industrial chemicals is
a bad thing - has stood the test of time very well, e.g. cigarettes,
MSG, transfats, etc. That she didn't focus on cigarettes is not much
of a criticism; that she alerted a society and its environmental
scientists to pay attention to these things is high praise. No tragedy
at all there.
DDT is a good example of an agent that is inadequately understood. And
malaria is a horrible disease. And yes, trying to rectify errors and
improve our health through systemic interventions will produce
unintended effects. No surprise there. But is it not better than to
try and solve problems than ignoring them for fear of not always
getting it right?
Dandelions? Wente has got to be kidding! Dandelion salad, dandelion
wine....
Does anyone know if malaria can be stopped by any means other than
stopping DDT?
Cheers,
Lawry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cordell,
Arthur: ECOM
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Futurework] Silent Spring is a case study in the tragedy of
goodintentions
Harry can annoy but he can also (in his own way ) inform. It was in
one of Harry's postings that I first became aware of the DDT
controversy and Rachel Carson's role.
Arthur
----------------------------------
Comment
Carson's toxic legacy; Her book Silent Spring is a case study in the
tragedy of good intentions
MARGARET WENTE
24 May 2007
The Globe and Mail <javascript:void(0)>
I was 12 when I read Rachel Carson's newly published book, Silent
Spring, in 1962. Although I'd never heard the term "environmentalist,"
she turned me into one. I didn't understand the complicated science in
it. But I was horrified by her evocation of a natural world whose
creatures were being wiped out by man-made poisons - the silent
spring, where no birds sang. In school, I wrote an essay praising
Silent Spring, and another one explaining why a bomb shelter wouldn't
help you survive a nuclear attack. (That was an apocalyptic time, not
unlike our own.)
Born 100 years ago this week, Ms. Carson is still revered as the
patron saint of the environmental movement. Schools, conferences and
special days are named after her. Among her foremost admirers is Al
Gore. "Silent Spring came as a cry in the wilderness, a deeply felt,
thoroughly researched and brilliantly written argument that changed
the course of history," he wrote.
Indeed it did - and not necessarily for the better. In fact, it led to
one of the greatest tragedies of modern times. Thanks to Ms. Carson's
all-out attack on pesticides, DDT was banned in the West. But DDT was
also the most effective anti-malarial agent ever invented; before it
fell into disrepute, it was credited with saving 100 million lives.
When the Western nations cut off their support for DDT spraying
programs in the Third World, the death toll shot back up.
Today, malaria cripples local economies and kills 2.7 million people
every year - mostly children under 5. In a devastating investigative
piece, New York Times journalist Tina Rosenberg wrote, "Silent Spring
is now killing African children because of its persistence in the
public mind."
"Poor woman. She never actually said 'Ban DDT,' " says Amir Attaran,
an expert on public-health and development policy at the University of
Ottawa.
"Her point was that we should use chemicals less." But for
environmental fundamentalists, Silent Spring was the ideal propaganda
tool to drive home their message. And even though the World Health
Organization has now reversed itself on DDT, countless environmental
and cancer activists continue to cite the DDT ban as one of
environmentalism's greatest "victories."
DDT's persistence in the environment did, indeed, affect certain bird
species, such as eagles. But after decades of testing, there's not a
shred of evidence that it causes cancer in humans, as Ms. Carson
claimed. Although she was an eloquent, impassioned writer, science
wasn't her strong suit. "She focused on the one environmental subject
[chemicals] where you have to have the greatest scientific knowledge,"
says Prof. Attaran.
Silent Spring is riddled with anecdotal evidence and misleading
assertions that flunk the most basic science test. "Today more
American school children die of cancer than from any other cause," she
wrote, implying that pesticides were to blame. But the real reason for
this alarming trend was the dramatic decline in other causes of child
mortality, especially infectious diseases. At the time she wrote, the
mortality rate from childhood cancer hadn't changed for decades.
Curiously, she also overlooked the greatest man-made cancer agent of
them all: cigarettes.
Today the legacy of Silent Spring is all around us. As cities and
towns rush to ban lawn sprays, you can thank Ms. Carson for the
dandelions in the park. The belief that man-made agents are unnatural,
and thus inherently bad - even in the most minute amounts - is now
widespread. Millions of people are convinced that toxic chemicals in
our food, our water, and our air are responsible for the cancer
epidemic, even though no such epidemic exists. Her apocalyptic
prophecies about how mankind is destroying the Earth are faithfully
reproduced by extremists in the global warming crowd. Most seriously,
groups like the Sierra Club continue to lobby against DDT because of
the potential for "widespread misuse" - yet another example of the
distressing tendency among environmentalists to sacrifice the
interests of the Third World because they think they know better.
Ms. Carson wasn't really the mother of environmentalism either, as her
admirers like to claim. By the time she came along, the environmental
movement had been going strong for decades, and the public had already
embraced the importance of species conservation and the preservation
of open spaces.
The movement was already poised for its next - and far more
problematic - wave, the assault on Big Chem. "She didn't launch that
movement," says Prof. Attaran. "She was used by it."
And she was not used well. She may have turned the sixties generation
on to environmentalism. But ultimately, Silent Spring is a case study
in the tragedy of good intentions.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca <mailto:Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca>
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
