To:[email protected] CC: BCC: Subject:Re: Re Cost of conservation
Original Message: ----------------- From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 19:26:07 +1000 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation On 05/05/2007, at 4:05 AM, Dan Minette wrote: >> Indeed, Gautam made a good argument here that environmental policy and >> environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 >> million/year due to malaria. The US used DDT as part of its >> elimination of >> malaria. No human deaths were attributed to DDT. >That isn't why it stopped being used, Dan. Two reasons - first it >persistent in the food chain and the long term ecological >implications were regarded as untenable, but second, and this is >something that non-biologists seem to have a lot of difficulty really >comprehending, mosquitoes got resistant to it. Its efficacy was >already dropping. Just as the malaria parasite has become resistant >to most of the reliable drugs, the _Anopheles_ mosquitoes became >resistant to several of the cheap reliable insecticides. >DT is used still, in impregnated nets. That's the only place it >eally has in the current antimalarial arsenal. Maybe the specificity of my statement wasn't clear. The points you made with respect to resistance to DDT is not unknown to me....I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. "Carpet bombing" use of insecticides does create those sort of problems. I also have no arguement with worries about the effects of such use on the environment. But, I was talking about resistance to a specific type of program....spraying of walls. If you look at a South Africa program on the World Banks site: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/SOUTHAFRICAEXTN /0,,contentMDK:21266668~menuPK:368095~pagePK:2865066~piPK:2865079~theSitePK: 368057,00.html http://tinyurl.com/2nr6t5 you will see my suggestion as one of three parts of a comprehensive program. This has a marginally high chance of promoting DDT-resistant mosquitos, but I think we agree that it's not much compared to the widespread, indiscriminate use that leads to resistance. One notes an important difference between South Africa and African countries that do not use this type of program....South Africa is the most prosperous Sub-Sahara African country. (Nigeria has a lot of oil revenue, but not a good ecconomy). As a result, it is far more likely to take actions in the interests of its own people than countries dependent on aid from foreign government and NGOs. As an aside, this article indicates that at least some NGOs are changing their viewpoints....and signing onto programs like the one that I've been reccomending. That's a very hopeful sign....and I hope that 10 years from now we can talk about the problem with a knee-jerk reaction against anything involving DDT being a past problem, with malaria deaths reduced to a fraction of what they are now. So, from my perspective, I see three general viewpoints on this issue. One was that held, say, 50 years ago, which was focused on the immediate positive reaction to using chemical insecticieds....and generally being if a little is good, more is better. The second is a focus on the dangers of the use, with the only acceptable level of use being zero. The third is an understanding of cost/benefits. You have presented very solid arguements against case 1...and I do not have any conflict with those points. My arguement is that a subset of environmentalists by giving false and misleading information, are contributing to the problems with malaria. I tried to chose my words carefully, and I think _ontributing to_ captures the nature of the problem. I also gave references to statements that I see as problematic. What I'm arguing for is a hard nosed cost/benefit analysis. I don't see that in the POP site that I quoted. The fact that there are problems with using DDT doesn't make overstating the risks valid. It's the mirror image of "if a little is good, a lot is better" falacy: "if a lot is bad, any is bad." I don't place you in the third camp...and I don't see myself at all in the first. Your arguement seems to accept DDT impregnated mosquito nets as a worthwhile...and a reasonable tradeoff. I'm adding indoor spraying as a useful step...and do not endorse widespread outdoor spraying, let alone carpet bombing spraying....with development of DDT resistant mosquitoes as the main reason for my opposition to widespread outdoor use. Where we seem to differ is on the validity/value of indoor wall spraying. I don't see the problem with this, and have seen persuasive arguements for the usefulness of such spraying. The only arguement that I see against this is the fear that it would be the camel's nose under the tent. So, my question is: if the amount of DDT is actually limited to the amount needed for wall spraying, are there any significant dangers to this use? And if there are, do they outweigh the benefits? Dan M. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
