# DDT saves lives



## sleeping queen (Nov 10, 2003)

Here is an interesting article. It is sad what is happening to children in Africa. DDT saves lives

This is one of the reasons I think the UN is bad news.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/mom/ddt/ddt.html

Quote:

The World Health Organization estimates that during the period of its use approximately 25 million lives were saved. DDT seemed to be the ideal insecticide it is cheap and of relatively low toxicity to mammals (oral LD50 is 300 to 500 mg/kg). However, problems related to extensive use of DDT began to appear in the late 1940s. Many species of insects developed resistance to DDT, and DDT was also discovered to have a high toxicity toward fish.

The chemical stability of DDT and its fat solubility compounded the problem. DDT is not metabolized very rapidly by animals; instead, it is deposited and stored in the fatty tissues. The biological half-life of DDT is about eight years; that is, it takes about eight years for an animal to metabolize half of the amount it assimilates. If ingestion continues at a steady rate, DDT builds up within the animal over time.
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt/ddt.htm

Quote:

What harmful effects can DDT have on us?

Probable human carcinogen

Damages the liver

Temporarily damages the nervous system

Reduces reproductive success

Can cause liver cancer

Damages reproductive system
So...it is okay if it kills the mosquito and causes all these other problems. I for one think we need to stop dicking with the natural balance of the world. Everything serves a purpose and if we kill all the things we find objectionable, the balance is gone and we all of a sudden have larger problems.

Reproductive problems caused by a fat soluble compound that takes 8 years to break down...hmmm. A topic near and dear to my heart. Sure the use of this may save some people from malaria, but it can travel, and your children may not be able to have children, and then you can add the fun fact that our national bird will have been killed off too.

So yeah, sounds great - sign me up for a round.


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

DDT is bad news. Along with AdinaLs thinking I agree that it is not worth the risks. I know the effects of this was horrible and if it can be lethal in animals as well as in humans I disagree with the article.

The UN does just no good in the world now does it


----------



## sleeping queen (Nov 10, 2003)

That is the problem with enviromentalist ideas half of them aren't true and the other half values animals over people. Enviromental fraud


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

Sleeping Queen-
Did you notice their bio at the bottom of the page?

".....this husband and wife team -internation freelance writers and speakers-teach a philosophical approach to conservatism. They are also real estate agents in the Washington, DC area."

It is important to check out who writes these things before you fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

If you are interested in a complex chemical like DDT, look for the scientific research that is available. Chemistry is extremely complex, and the opinions of lay people are not reliable.

However, when you need to buy Real Estate in the DC area, call these people!


----------



## Mom4tot (Apr 18, 2003)

I heard about this too. Adina, I think they were talking about very small amounts of DDT sprayed onto the huts themselves.
It is very sad that so many children are dying from Malaria. I wish they had an effective alternative. The report I saw was focusing on DDT as a short term solution to an epidemic and was implying the UN was being "big brother" and not looking squarely at the needs of the residents now.


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*That is the problem with enviromentalist ideas half of them aren't true and the other half values animals over people. Enviromental fraud*

Wow. I'm always open to learning new things so I checked out your link. The article was poorly written so I went to his main site, famgaurdian.org.

I surfed around until I found the "About Us" page (famgaurdian.org/Subjects/Humor/Multimedia/pms.mp3.)

The author of the article and owner of the site's name is Chris Hansen. Number 17 on the page was an attack on his ex-wife calling her a "prostitute on the lay away plan- paying her after.." he wasn't getting sex anymore.. etc. This goes on...then there is a link to another humorous little thing: "why men prefer dogs over wives" (#18 If you bring another dog home, your dog will happily play with both of you!) cute.

Of course, interspersed throughout are copious biblical quotes.

Now I'm just plain pissed off. Is this what you believe in? Are you for real? I am just disgusted. This is what I get for reading a christian website?

And a man who is clearly mentally unstable and writes articles about environmentalism and why men prefer dogs over women is your authority on the subject?

There isn't a smilie for how I feel! I looked!


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Even if it is a small amount on the huts, there will be more mosquitos the next year, and so on. With an 8 year half life in human fat, that means that it will build up at an alarming rate in the tissue of the residents.

And this isn't about valuing animals over humans SQ...this is about valuing the earth as a whole, balanced and working well. It is all interlinked really...and to think that if we remove one species we won't have problems, well that is short sighted and silly. And that is not about being an environmental whacko.

There are a verity of antimalarial drugs available - perhaps we should be funding the ability of these people to get those drugs instead of just spraying them with a chemical and hoping there aren't effects down the road.


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*That is the problem with enviromentalist ideas half of them aren't true and the other half values animals over people. Enviromental fraud*

Well then, the author of the article is an environmentalist, because he favors dogs over "wives"

What a load of


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Quote:

Well then, the author of the article is an environmentalist, because he favors dogs over "wives"
Yeah....... he's one of those wacky environmental people SQ is talking about! Hey, at least he's an animal rights activist!:LOL


----------



## pilesoflaundry (Dec 9, 2003)

I looked around that environmental fraud site and it made me want to uke pure trash and most of it is opinion not fact. If your going to post something at least try and post facts to back it up geesh!

And I don't think using DDT to control the malaria is a good idea. Sure you will kill some of the mosquitos but won't you be screwing up the ecosystem not to mention opening the door for long term health issues much worse than malaria? Like cancer, infertility etc?? So are you really helping any? Not IMO.


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

PRo and con DDT @ the BMJ

British Medical Journal

The first article deals with the PRos of DDT and malaria. The second on the costs and the third(and most IMPORTANT-IMO) deals with the cons and physical risks of DDT and alternatives.

PRO:

Quote:

The tool of course, DDT. The campaign to ban it, joined by 260 environmental groups, reads like a who's who of the environmental movement and includes names such as Greenpeace, Worlwide Fund for Nature (WWF) and (ironically) The Physicians for Social Responsibility. Together, they are "demanding action to eliminate" DDT and its sources.

Quote:

This view is stunningly naive. DDT residual house spraying is an inexpensive, highly effective practice against malaria, and it has been approved by the World Health Organization. In it, trained sprayers apply a small quantity of DDT on the interior walls and eves of the homes in endemic regions. The quantities involved are minimal (2q/m2) and, unlike agricultural uses which inject tonnes of DDT into the oudoors, indoor house spraying results in little harmful release to the environment. For the amount of DDT used on a cotton field, all the high risk residents of a small country can be protected from malaria.
But at what cost?? Scroll down to the third article. The second small article deals with the expensive alternatives to DDT-note $$ is an issue.

Quote:

DDT and its metabolites have been found in human breastmilk and in amniotic fluid. Researchers recently found that raised concentrations of DDE in the serum of human mothers are associated with the risk of preterm delivery, small for gestational age birth rate, and reduced height of children at age 7. Two studies, one in North Carolina and a replication in Mexico, associate raised concentrations of DDE in human mothers with early weaning.
I think the risk to future generations of these cultures should be a major factor in DDT as a now solution, not long term. I wanted to quote more, but I am going to far on the quoting!!!

They did state that spraying inside homes risked breastfed children who have a higher levels of DDT than recommended. This contributed to Mexico and South Africa substituting alternative methods to DDT.

The risks to me are overwhelming and again effect all future generations of these countries as well as others, due to the fact that DDT can travel long distances.


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

OK here is the quote to back up my last comment. I want to really have this right:

Quote:

DDT is sprayed inside homes, where it may pose a particular risk to humans. Researchers in Mexico and South Africa found raised concentrations of DDT in peope who lived where it was being used to control malaria and they estimated that breastfed children in those areas were being dosed at levels exceeding those recommended by the World Health Organization and Agricultural Organization. These findings contributed to both countries substituting alternative methods of control
If you want to check out the Physicians for Social Responsibility
the winners of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize and who "ironically" are against DDT check out theit site. PSR

I searched for DDT, but my computer cannot support their documents


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by isleta_
*OK here is the quote to back up my last comment. I want to really have this right:

If you want to check out the Physicians for Social Responsibility
the winners of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize and who "ironically" are against DDT check out theit site. PSR

I searched for DDT, but my computer cannot support their documents







*

Thank you, Isleta, for posting meaningful and legitimate research!

My heart breaks for the millions if not billions of families that struggle just to survive every day.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I really wonder if some people support the use of DDT because:

A.) It is much cheaper than the safer forms of malaria treatment;

and B.) Gee, we won't let them use their DDT here in the US, because it's too dangerous; but they don't have a problem with people purchasing their product and spraying it on all of these innocent poor people in a third world country.


----------



## arthead (Nov 25, 2003)

candiland! You took the words from my mind! I often think that the US & other more developed nations tend to duck away from "testing" chemical subs until they can be used in a country where bad results (DEATH & DISEASE!) can be easily swept under the rug. Of course I realize that this has probably been going on forever. Makes one proud to be " 'Merican", eh?!!









~ rolling on in search of humanity...


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

I don't really know why I went through the trouble of finding this, but what the heck..

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...hreadid=111009

Somewhere on the second page Snowy Owl and Fianna, I think it was, debate the benefits and disadvantages of DDT.

I considered it a relativley thought provoking and interesting conversation.

You were part of the thread too, sleeping queen, remember?

What do you think? Would *you* spray DDT in *your* home if Malaria came to your part of the world?

Food for thought....


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I really wonder if some people support the use of DDT because:

A.) It is much cheaper than the safer forms of malaria treatment;

and B.) Gee, we won't let them use their DDT here in the US, because it's too dangerous; but they don't have a problem with people purchasing their product and spraying it on all of these innocent poor people in a third world country.
This hurts me to even write it, but...

How about the fact that DDT is "birth control"? It lessens reproduction, making some people sterile. Obviously family planning or "real" birth control is bad, but if the birth rate just dropped.... wonder if "They" would be upset?

Regarding B--- yup! Just like tons of other stuff that can't be used in the US, just ship it to someone who can't afford to be "picky"


----------



## 5796 (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:

Now I'm just plain pissed off. Is this what you believe in? Are you for real? I am just disgusted. This is what I get for reading a christian website?

Quote:

And a man who is clearly mentally unstable and writes articles about environmentalism and why men prefer dogs over women is your authority on the subject?

It is worth noting that the response to these comments is deafening silent.

my own opinion the original posting it is not for a real discussion. It is just to stir people up.
If I had the time I would point out all the other threads which are not followed up on and post it to mods.
but I'm too busy and I don't think anyone really cares.

regarding DDT.
If you do a google search you will probably find some of those cancer hot spots over former farm lands which are now housing developments. farm lands that used ddt before it was outlawed. I have had those websites forwarded to me because of a few friends with cancer but again, I'm not even going to bother because I don't believe certain people care...

whatever..


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

Your welcome Honey! It was just to me so laughable when an organization such as PSR is put out as the bad guy!! It is good to see both sides of the debate and notice which one has the condecending tone.

I can understand your POV Trabot, but I just felt I needed to put out there some research on DDT because it is something I deal with in my research studies.

I understand that some posters do not return, but hopefully some good will come of the sources.

And yes, DDT is the least expensive and again "less developed countries" (means poor and usually indebted to certain other developed countries) are the main cultures that are hit with such lethal solutions. Makes one wonder why other countries would allow such reproductive failure to continue in other cultures, eh?


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by trabot_
> *It is worth noting that the response to these comments is deafening silent.
> 
> my own opinion the original posting it is not for a real discussion. It is just to stir people up.
> ...


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

So, what's being said here and in other threads is that, okay, we have different viewpoints but if your method is to post something knowingly provocative and not follow up or respond, over and over again, this is very bad discussion board etiquette that will make you most unpopular?
Is this correct? Why would anyone do that on purpose?


----------



## 5796 (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:

Why would anyone do that on purpose?
good question.

At the very least. And I say at the very least..... it is bad form, and poor etiquette as you suggested.

but I think neither is important to these posters. It is much like Rush Limbaugh's show. Where he pontificates and receives no challenges. I haven't listened to him in a very long time but when I did, he would occasionally take a counter phone call but only before he went to commerical and his method was to hear the question, not answer any of the questions, announce a snappy comment and toss to commercial. Again, not a real discussion.

Maybe he is the prototype for these posters.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

I think he is here among us....................


----------



## sleeping queen (Nov 10, 2003)

Myth number 4 Read #4. This is reported by a reputable newsite.


----------



## sleeping queen (Nov 10, 2003)

ddt and eggshells Another source.


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

Um, DDT cause eggshell thinning in raptors? It causes reproductive difficulties in humans?

Sleeping Queen, would you like the gov't to come over to your house right now and spray it? It might cause you to be unable to reproduce. Are you OK with that?

There is no easy answer to this problem. The opinion of a newcaster from 20/20 is not a scientific study. The lack of current study of DDT nowadays due to "lack of funding" is analogous to the "lack of funding" for the risks of unltrasounds on the unborn, IMO.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I am really confused - ???

Is DDT really good or is it really bad?

I read an article by Dr. William Campbell Douglass who has his own newsletter and he was making an argument for DDT saying that it actually prevented breast cancer. The article made no sense.

Has anyone read this?? -- heard of this -??

Also -

MY BIL worked for MIU and they ate lots of Basmati rice from India thinking it was healthier than American grown rice. Then they discovered that the basmati rice imported from India had lots of DDT residues...bad news. They decided to eat the domestic basmati rice.

I guess I am just confused.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

From the abc newstory posted earlier:

Quote:

"If it's DDT, it must be awful. And that's fine if you're a rich, white environmentalist," says Amir Attaran, a scientist leading a campaign urging the use of DDT to fight malaria. "It's not so fine if you're a poor black kid who's about to lose his life from malaria."
I think it's interesting the way the whole class/race thing has been turned around in this article so that it's the Environmentalists that are the priveliged fat cats protecting their own interests.
It makes about as much sense as saying 'welfare moms' are causing the national debt.

Could expand on this further but I'm supposed to be looking up a muffin recipe for my daughter.

Later-O.....


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

The little gem about greenies causing deaths in Africa popped up in Australia, too. There was an excellent rebuttal letter in our national newspaper, The Australian, written by scientists working on the issue of malaria. Australia devotes a heap of money & research to mosquito borne illnesses, as large areas of the country have a variety of mossie carried diseases (but not malaria.....yet). I couldn't find the letter, but I think it came from CSIRO (Commonweath Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation). sleeping queen, they are our peak research body, & you'd be hard pressed to find a knee-jerk environmentalist on their payroll. I'll try & do the link thing, so you can do a bit of your own research & draw your own conclusions. They are definitely more credible than 20/20, & they are not run by left-wing conspiricists, I promise you!!! Just type DDT into their on-site search engine & away you go.

10 minutes later......okay, so I'm a techno-idiot. The website is

http://www.csiro.au/index.asp

There, did that link it?


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

Yes, the link worked. However, my computer can never handle big documents so I could not read them









From the descriptions it seems that the pests become immune to DDT and other chemical agents and that DDT had an effect on the wild lands and animal reproduction of Australia. I *think* this is the investigations they are doing. But, not sure because I could not read the report.

To me DDT is bad and I can load up on research if I had time. I did post one link~! Anyway, chemicals are not to be taken lightly and I feel that DDT might help malaria victims now, however, the effect on the reproduction of humans is quite scary.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Gee, I wish I could link to that letter in last week's Australian. The gist of the letter was that DDT is still in use in Africa, primarily as an indoor insecticide on furniture & nets to sleep under. They were saying that because insects developed a resistance to DDT use outdoors, this type of use was already being phased out before DDT was banned in the States (or something like that- I'm truly not trying to re-write data here.) Also said something like DDT is part of a whole mosquito control program, & that's why the research into alternative outdoor-use chemicals is important.

I do think that someone, somewhere wrote a piece about this topic, & due to the modern age of communication it has gone everywhere (& the original writing has been plagarised to some extent, I'd dare say). I don't know why some folks feel the need to write & screen poorly researched anti-environmentalist information (Yes, that's you 20/20 & Barbara Walters!!), just so other folks like sleeping queen end up in a dither about it & think the greenies are to blame for everything. Honestly. I get just as sick of environmental false claims as anybody else, I think it hurts the movement. But then to go and answer it with more false claims (banning DDT caused millions of Africans to die), playing around with the realities of other peoples lives, well, it just makes me feel really, really cranky







.


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

Sleeping Queen:

This is the link Isleta posted earlier in this thread:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../321/7273/1403

If you really are interested in this topic this is a good resource. You will notice that there is an article that is in favor of DDT and one that is not. For example:

Quote:

This view is stunningly naive. DDT residual house spraying is an inexpensive, highly effective, practice against malaria, and it has been approved by the World Health Organization. In it, trained sprayers apply a small quantity of DDT on the interior walls and eaves of homes in endemic regions. The quantities involved are minimal (2 g/m2) and, unlike agricultural uses which inject tonnes of DDT into the outdoors, indoor house spraying results in little harmful release to the environment. For the amount of DDT used on a cotton field, all the high risk residents of a small country can be protected from malaria.2
This website also lists 17 other research papers. You may not have noticed that John Stossel didn't reference any scientific literature, just his opinion.

The author that wrote against DDT states that it may not work as well as everyone thinks:

Quote:

The draft treaty on persistent organic pollutants is fully consistent with changes in malaria control strategies promoted by the WHO. Over the past 30 years the WHO has backed away from its once enthusiastic support for DDT. The Pan American Health Organization, WHO's affiliate in Latin America, recently expressed strong reservations about the effectiveness of broadscale application of DDT for malaria control.11 Its recent study illustrates the reason for this concern: it shows that during the late 1980s and early 1990s, malaria rates in Brazil went up even as spraying of houses with DDT increased, but rates dropped after Brazil shifted to alternative control methods.12
There are safer alternatives:

Quote:

Many alternatives to DDT have already been successfully used for controlling malaria. Mexico, for example, committed itself to ending use of DDT by 2007, provided that suitable alternatives are available. Relying on a range of effective and affordable chemical and non-chemical strategies, Mexico has been so successful that its DDT manufacturing plant has ceased production owing to lack of demand. The director of Mexico's malaria control programme, Jorge Mendez, has even declared that it is 25% cheaper for Mexico to spray a house with other chemicalssynthetic pyrethroidsthan with DDT.13 Similar success stories of effective programmes not based on DDT can be found around the globe.

The authors acknowledge that if it is necessary, some countries will use DDT if they have to, but that the WHO is helping countries phase out its use if possible:

Quote:

The cautious approach being adopted in the treaty reflects uncertainty about how many countries that are still using DDT can successfully move from it. South Africa illustrates the dilemma. South Africa stopped spraying DDT out of concern for its hazard to human health. But one of the mosquito vectors of malaria proved resistant to synthetic pyrethroid sprays, so South Africa has resumed using DDT. South Africa made the difficult choice that the developmental risks from spraying with DDT are outweighed by the need to provide protection from malaria.

Quote:

The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, Klaus Toepfer, and the first director of WHO's Roll Back Malaria programme, David Nabarro, have stated that a properly constructed phase out of DDT can produce a "win-win" situation for environmental health. 16 17 Malaria imposes a horrendous social and economic burden totalling billions of dollars. The treaty on persistent organic pollutants can mobilise fresh financial and technical resources to help achieve protection from both malaria and DDT.

Good research gives a balanced view (pros and cons) and has to prove what it claims by referencing other scientific papers or research. If you just check for those two things, than you will find that you will learn and grow more open minded. John Stossel was much better than that freaky psycho you linked to earlier, though. Progress!

Also, if you made it this far, could you please tell me why you think that this complicated issue proves that the UN is "bad news"? (your OP) I don't get what they have to do with it.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

Speaking as someone who has a horrific Mosquito (did I spell that right?)problem every freaking summer at my house. I also have a son who is allergic to them... he gets aweful welts when he gets bit, I also want to say that I love my kids more than anything... but not in 100 years would I allow my home, the covers they sleep under or any other such nonsense to be covered in DDT! I have noticed in the last couple of years that there has been an increase in bats in my area! And guess what they eat! You got it mosquitos!
What I have a problem with is the fact that there is a treatment for moleria (ok I know I spelled that wrong sorry!). But no one wants to just give it way or make it cheap! It is sickening to me how certain people of this earth are treated like total crap and that is OK. They don't deserve medical treatment, just cover them in chemicals! Is it a race thing? I mean if in the USA they desided to spray everyone here, their house and such with a chemical that could destroy their fertility, cause cancer and what ever else... would we stand for it? But it is ok in Africa, and Asia and India... to with hold life saving medication for cheap chemicals, all for the all mighty dollar?
This subject really burns me up!
And why is it always the "greenies" faults? Like wanting to protect the earth... humans, animals, plants, water, air etc...is bad! WTF??? I mean for CS we only have this one freaking planet! I want my children, grandchildren, great grand children to have a beautiful, green, planet with well cared for people, fresh air, clean water, organic food! Come on! Why is one group of people subject to CRAP while others can comment on how they should be greatful for the chemicals that are killing them. Instead of medicating the sick, we just kill all the people and get it over with. Is that what you want SQ??

H


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

You go Mama


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

Quote:

What I have a problem with is the fact that there is a treatment... But no one wants to just give it way or make it cheap!
(snipped)

But that's where I have a problem. The treatment isn't very effective. The preventatives sicken people by themselves, the curatives don't work very well. When the medications (no matter the cost) do damage, I start to think that prevention is a good thing when it has comparable damages. The problem is comparing damages. Is impared fertility equivilent to a high childhood death rate? How do you compare ecological damage to the permanent health effects of malaria? I cannot do it.

My sincere wish is that we didn't ruin it in the beginning. If we hadn't done full-scale outdoor warfare with DDT and had gone with sensible human-habitation-area spraying, we might still have an effective solution. But it's ruined now, the barn door can't be closed after the horses have left.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

I have to argee on the whole thing of which is worse the disease or the cure. But the medical treatment is effect in most people (I said in most not all). IF (and that is a BIG if) they are given it properly... because there are resitant strains out there, because people either didn't take their meds like they where suppose to, or they couldn't afford it, or they where not given enough, or a combo of the three. They don't use quinine much any more, there are two synthectic drugs they usually use now, and use quinine for the troublesome malaria bugs.
The big problem with DDT is that it doesn't kill all the mosquitos and there for you have resistant mosquitos flying around. Now I have read that they are trying to reintroduce natural mosquito preditors to really bad areas, and also fill in the standing water with dirt to keep the mosquitos from breeding.
Also, if you have sick/dying mosquitos flying around (pisioned with DDT, but not yet dead) it does harm not only the people, but also the natural preditors. There for making less of them.
It is the about the "web of life" as corny as it sounds. You can't take out piece after piece and expect not to do damage. And sometime the damage is you STILL have mosquitos and not enough natural preditors.

I try to have hope that we can round up the horses and close the barn doors (so to speak). That we can give it our best efforts to reverse some if not all the damage we have done (when I say we I mean people...) I mean we can't bring back all the animals and plants that are gone for good, but we can change our ways, and try to reverse the damage. What we need to do though, is HONESTLY look past our own life times, see past even our great grandchildren, see what we are leaving people who we will never meet, who may never know who we where.

H


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

T

Aussiemom, it is so cute that you Aussies call mosquitoes mossies! I never heard that before!


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Even though we may have 'lost' the DDT tool through overuse, there are other alternatives being developed. Not that I think chemical sprays are the be all, end all- nope, far from it! But i do know that where I live, about 2 weeks after the city council sprays the mangroves and wetlands, life becomes much more bearable. I don't know what they use







!, but I'm sure it's not DDT & it must be available to more countries than just mine. The question is, how much does it cost? Which then brings us back to the idea that preventative care is only available to those who can afford it, which ain't the majority of people living in malarial Africa (Asia, too, for that matter). It's all very circular & it's funny how these things, these catastrophes that certain pundits & media outlets try to pin on the 'Environmentalists' end up coming back to the real issues of distribution of wealth & power in the world. It's not just malaria, it's the trees, it's the fisheries, it's urban sprawl, it's forest fires out of control, it's the oil......Why try to discredit the Greenies? Don't know, part of me thinks that some people are just like that, they love to give the sleeping queens of the world someone to blame. But another part of me thinks they are scared........

edited to add: thanx DaryLLL, did you also know bikers (as in big burly Harley riders) are called, wait for it, "bikies'


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

Awwww!


----------

