On 7 Feb, 2006, at 15:15, Mike Morris wrote:
Interesting that you bring up the DDT issue. I believe it was the WHO
who just last year published a report on DDT and malaria. DDT was
used
extensively in the US to combat Malaria and that disease is now
virtually non existent in this country.
Yeah, but
1] your malaria is different from their malaria (Western Europe had
indigenous malaria too. The Plasmodium parasite found in temperate
zones is a different species with different disease properties than
the Plasmodium found in the tropics)
2] it wasn't so much DDT that eradicated temperate malaria but the
drainage and reclamation of extensive wetlands that formed the main
refuge for the mosquito vectors of the temperate Plasmodium.
The level we sprayed were
hundreds of times higher than were required. The 1960's mentality was
if a little kills most of them tons will kill all of them.
ANd this is/was the main problem with DDT. Indiscriminate use as a
general purpose/broad spectrum insecticide. And yes, DDT has some
very nasty properties, both toxicologically and environmental fate-
wise. But, used wisely, it can still be an effective agent in
combating specific problems, such as malaria in tropical settings.
Besides, DDT is not very harmful to large mammals.
To make this fishing related, how would you like to know that every
time
you go to the stream to fish every bug bite could be fatal?
True, but statistics are needed to tell you what the magnitude of the
risk is. COmmon experience will tell you that it is pretty low ;-) In
fact I would think the risk of a fatal snake bite or septicemia from
e.g. a thorn is higher...
Cheers
Henk
=============================== ><(((((º>
===============================
| Dr. Henk J.M. Verhaar | e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Ecotoxicoloog en vliegbinder | tel: 035 656
2128 |
| Stichts End 17 | mobiel: 06 26
136034 |
| NL-1244 PK Ankeveen | web: www.xs4all.nl/
~flyrod |
=============================== <º)))))><
===============================
