But Her Heart Was Good (Re: Rachel Carson)

[AngryAmish]

<http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/2007/05/but_her_heart_w.html>

From a Forbes blog, so take it for what it is worth:

"Buried in paragraph 27, and paraphrasing the Congressman, The Washington Post concedes that "numerous" deaths might have been prevented by DDT.

Let's stop here. Any curious reader would ask, Just how "numerous" is numerous? Wouldn't you ask that question? The Post never asks that question. Why?

Because the answer devastates Rachel Carson and her followers. According to these CDC figures, malaria kills more than 800,000 children under age five every year.

Every year, 800,000 small children die from malaria, a disease once nearly eradicated. Ponder that."

[JPZenger]

1. Difference is Between Places with and without malaria

Yes, DDT may be a poison of last resort/necessary evil in Third World Countries that still have high rates of malaria. However, it still was a major triumph to ban DDT in other parts of the world.

Carson's achievement was in explaining the concept of a "bio-accumulative" hazard in which the severity of the poisoning increases as one species is eaten by another species. In addition to saving many species, Carson's work saved many lives from people who would have eaten contaminated animals.

[AngryAmish]

5. Was it worth the human cost

30 years of the ban x 800000 deaths a year= 24,000,000 dead. More than the Final Solution times 2.

[Captain Hilts]

2. And DDT was used irresponsibly. nt

[DBoon]

4. and mosquitos quickly became resistant to DDT

the widespread use of DDT kiled its effectiveness as a pesticide, not Rachel Carson

[cally]

3. Also credit Carson with raising awareness of all pesticides

and food additives. Her book was devastating to the chemical/industrial farm industry. We're still fighting these battles to make our food safer.

[hlthe2b]

6. This is an issue that I can argue vociferously from both sides...

As one who has worked in 3rd world countries where malaria remains a leading cause of death, especially for children, I understand the frustration of local health ministries who want to use the most effective response available. Arguably, that remains DDT.

On the other hand, the harm that can come from DDT and other highly persistent halogenated hydrocarbons (e.g., PCBs) are still not fully understood. The estrogenic effects have only (relatively) recently been recognized as a potential source of harm to both humans and other animal species. While increased cancer risk may seem a frivolous conern to people who are losing large numbers in childhood to malaria, the perspective is quite different among the western industrialized countries...

Neither side is wrong. DDT is not without substantial risks-- the extent not fully defined. Yet, for those fighting malaria and seeing years of promise with respect to vaccines or biologic solutions not come to pass, it is understandable that they would like to rethink use of DDT.

[Jim__]

7. What about money?

I've read articles that indicate the death rate from malaria can be drastically reduced through such simple things as the use of mosquito nets, largely unavailable due to severe funding cuts for treating malaria from the World Bank.

I don't know much about the issue. But, it seems like Forbes may be presenting only one small part of the problem.

[hlthe2b]

8. Safer pesticide impregnated mosquito nets and soaps can be

effective, but they have to be continually funded, as you say. But, it is hard to proclaim any of these measures as "the answer." Progress IS being made on a vaccine, but time may not be on the side of those at risk, given global warming which will effect vector rates.

Malaria control is a complex issue and one that does (unfortunately) pit the interests of the industrialized west with much of the poorer population-dense areas of the world.