Are you kidding me? All right. I’m going to discuss this with a more scientific approach than a tree hugger’s heart. But I have to let you know- you’re lucky you aren’t in the same room as me because I could wring your throat right now.
Sam, DDT is one of the reasons so many people have cancer and birth defects, etc, etc. Yes, eradicating diseases like malaria is very important. But there is medication for those diseases. They’re working on finding vaccines for malaria as we speak, so to say. And there are other options as well. The article suggested vector control-killing the mosquitoes before they hatch. This is an excellent way to reduce populations. Also making sure there isn’t any standing pools of water near people’s homes and work places, which provide excellent breeding grounds for mosquitoes. So it is possible to greatly reduce the danger of most of the insect-spread diseases without using toxic pesticides like DDT. Cancer on the other hand, doesn’t have a cure. I don’t see how DDT can still be considered a viable option for DISEASE CONTROL.
Also, when you use DDT to kill insects such as mosquitoes, you also wipe out every other kind of insect in the area as well, including the positive species like spiders, which help reduce the mosquito populations. And insects are incredibly adaptive and can rebound quickly. Some are bound to survive, and those that do are more pesticide resistant. You’ve killed off all the predatory insects, so there’s nothing controlling the mosquito populations. You continue spraying DDT and the cycle continues until you’ve created super bugs that can’t be killed by even the strongest of chemicals. And then where will you be?
Here’re some DDT basics: DDT is best known for its bioaccumulation and bioamplification abilities. DDT is fat soluble, so it is stored in animal tissues very easily and stays there for good. As you travel up the food chain, the chemical and its harmful effects are amplified/magnified and the larger the organism, the more DDT ends up being stored in their tissues. The result varies with each species, from soft eggshells with bald eagles and brown pelicans, to cancer and birth defects in humans. DDT is also a very persistent chemical, meaning it takes a VERY long time to break down in the environment- anywhere from 20 to 100 years. DDT that was dumped in the ocean 50 years ago off the Channel Islands is still being found in women’s breast milk in Santa Barbara today. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the idea of feeding newborn children DDT-saturated breast milk.
And as for the quote you chose to highlight... By spraying DDT indoors, you’re only creating another indoor air pollutant people have to deal with. Indoor air pollution is one of the leading causes of respiratory problems today. I don’t care if you’re spraying DDT indoors only- I don’t care if you’re spraying it in the most controlled environments possible- that chemical will cause problems. And indoors is probably even worse for human health than outdoors. At least when its outside it can disperse into the atmosphere. But indoors its trapped. People are breathing it constantly and its contaminated everything they own. Clothes, carpets, walls, food... people would be constantly in taking the chemical. That’s bioaccumulation at its best.
The key word in that quote is, "CHEAPER." That’s what people care about and will tell the public anything so long as its the cheapest way. DDT is a far cheaper answer to the world’s disease problems than vaccinating people who are at risk of infection. They aren’t looking at the long run where in 50 years everyone who’s sprayed DDT will be affected by some form of cancer or other tragedy.
Now this is where you, Sam, should really be paying attention. This, I believe, is one of the main problems with politicians today. They look for the quick fix and what is best for today, but don’t bother to look down the road and think about how their actions and decisions will affect the world tomorrow. If you want to be a politician like you say you do, I believe this is something you should think about. Do me a favor Sam and at some point in your college career, take an environmental science class. Go into it with an open mind and see what you find out. I think it’ll be good for you. Realize that environmental science doesn’t focus on fighting the government and telling everyone how horrible they are for polluting. It focuses on the science behind the problems. It explains the chemistry, biology, and politics that make up the hole in the ozone layer and the effects of a society relying on fossil fuels. Science is something I believe the government over looks too often, unless of course it can be used to make atomic weapons or launch a shuttle into space. But some of the most important things occurring here on earth are simply over looked or purposefully ignored. It would be to your advantage to know more about environmental science, including how DDT affects humans and the environment. And do realize, DDT’s advantages are outweighed by far by their disadvantages.
Do you know what DDT stands for?... Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. How does that sound even remotely like it could do the body good? Chlorine alone sounds bad enough, but it appears five times in that single compound! Does that really sound like an advantageous chemical to you?
Whoa. Long answer. But seriously, thanks for the response! I'm glad to get into this.
First of all, I've got to defend MYSELF here, and not just the DDT thing. I seem to have created quite an anti-environment image for myself, but I assure you, compared to the radical right I AM an environmentalist. I can't stand any of Bush's bullshit environmental proposals, like the 'Healthy Forests' initiative (paving the way for clearcutting [haha nice pun there eh?]) and the 'Clear Skies' Act, which actually INCREASES pollutants into the air. I Was there to witness Clinton's last presidential initiative, which protected over 40 million acres of American land from development, only to have it be the FIRST act for Bush to strike down. I AM FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. I think about carbon dioxide emissions everyday, and how I wish there was something I could do right now to slow the outpour. Americans buy something like 15 million cars EVERY YEAR. Guh. And China's up next, ready to overtake America as the world power in about every way. Don't forget that countries like China and India were given a break from the Kyoto Accords, being left out on the basis that they were 'developing countries.' Whether that was a good move or not, I still don't know.
I think where I differ from you guys (avoiding the phrase 'you people' ;) ) is that I would sooner save lives than the environment. As long as both in the short and long run more lives are better off, then the environment comes second. I hate cars not only because they uglify the world, but our grandchildren will be paying for it a hundred years from now.
And as for your hit on politicians, I think I agree with you. But the point is moot here, because you have to realize that politicians (or at least American ones) aren't involved here. We've largely left Africa to their own problems, something that needs to change. We SHOULD be involved, and in the right way. The use of DDT against malaria is not some cheap political ploy to sideswipe the issue, it's done because 'from a medical point of view, there's nothing better, safer, or cheaper than indoor spraying.' (from the article) Notice SAFER there, it's an important point.
Because it's like I said before, the use of DDT here is VERY different from the agricultural uses of the past. Please realize this! With farms, DDT was spread freely everywhere over everything, with no regard or knowledge or drawbacks. With malaria, a VERY SMALL amount is sprayed indoors, keep in mind this is not sprayed everywhere around the house, and it completely eliminates risk of malaria. Yes, it's a dire measure, but dire issues call for it.
The people trying to fight this aren't doing it because it's easy, they're doing it because it's the most effective for it's price. Yes, it is cheap, but these people are on a pretty damn cheap budget, and maybe if the U.S. gave a little more support, it could be avoided. But it still remains not only the cheapest, but the most EFFECTIVE use against malaria. If they say it saves more lives than kills, then I'm for it.
And as for vector control, read what they say about it! 'Vector control-killing the mosquitoes before they hatch-is another key tool to reducing transmission rates. Satellite technology is being employed to help predict outbreaks and locate breeding grounds to direct spraying operations.' NOTE THAT: 'spraying operations' I haven't researched vector control more than that, but it doesn't sound very environmentally friendly to me.
I'm not sure if I want to be a politician and never have been. This time around, I'm always keeping the option open that I will hate politics and want to do something else. It's just what I'm interested in in my life right now and if I end up making a career out of it, then great. But I will take your advice and take an environmental science class, and hopefully I won't get another Carabell. Did you know I actually LIKED science before her, but now I hate it? Sad, sad, state of affairs.
Anyway, I'm open for more arguing (correction: 'discussing') if you still want to. It's been interesting.
Sam, DDT is one of the reasons so many people have cancer and birth defects, etc, etc. Yes, eradicating diseases like malaria is very important. But there is medication for those diseases. They’re working on finding vaccines for malaria as we speak, so to say. And there are other options as well. The article suggested vector control-killing the mosquitoes before they hatch. This is an excellent way to reduce populations. Also making sure there isn’t any standing pools of water near people’s homes and work places, which provide excellent breeding grounds for mosquitoes. So it is possible to greatly reduce the danger of most of the insect-spread diseases without using toxic pesticides like DDT. Cancer on the other hand, doesn’t have a cure. I don’t see how DDT can still be considered a viable option for DISEASE CONTROL.
Also, when you use DDT to kill insects such as mosquitoes, you also wipe out every other kind of insect in the area as well, including the positive species like spiders, which help reduce the mosquito populations. And insects are incredibly adaptive and can rebound quickly. Some are bound to survive, and those that do are more pesticide resistant. You’ve killed off all the predatory insects, so there’s nothing controlling the mosquito populations. You continue spraying DDT and the cycle continues until you’ve created super bugs that can’t be killed by even the strongest of chemicals. And then where will you be?
Here’re some DDT basics:
DDT is best known for its bioaccumulation and bioamplification abilities. DDT is fat soluble, so it is stored in animal tissues very easily and stays there for good. As you travel up the food chain, the chemical and its harmful effects are amplified/magnified and the larger the organism, the more DDT ends up being stored in their tissues. The result varies with each species, from soft eggshells with bald eagles and brown pelicans, to cancer and birth defects in humans. DDT is also a very persistent chemical, meaning it takes a VERY long time to break down in the environment- anywhere from 20 to 100 years. DDT that was dumped in the ocean 50 years ago off the Channel Islands is still being found in women’s breast milk in Santa Barbara today. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the idea of feeding newborn children DDT-saturated breast milk.
And as for the quote you chose to highlight... By spraying DDT indoors, you’re only creating another indoor air pollutant people have to deal with. Indoor air pollution is one of the leading causes of respiratory problems today. I don’t care if you’re spraying DDT indoors only- I don’t care if you’re spraying it in the most controlled environments possible- that chemical will cause problems. And indoors is probably even worse for human health than outdoors. At least when its outside it can disperse into the atmosphere. But indoors its trapped. People are breathing it constantly and its contaminated everything they own. Clothes, carpets, walls, food... people would be constantly in taking the chemical. That’s bioaccumulation at its best.
Hold on, I ran out of space...
Reply
Now this is where you, Sam, should really be paying attention. This, I believe, is one of the main problems with politicians today. They look for the quick fix and what is best for today, but don’t bother to look down the road and think about how their actions and decisions will affect the world tomorrow. If you want to be a politician like you say you do, I believe this is something you should think about. Do me a favor Sam and at some point in your college career, take an environmental science class. Go into it with an open mind and see what you find out. I think it’ll be good for you. Realize that environmental science doesn’t focus on fighting the government and telling everyone how horrible they are for polluting. It focuses on the science behind the problems. It explains the chemistry, biology, and politics that make up the hole in the ozone layer and the effects of a society relying on fossil fuels. Science is something I believe the government over looks too often, unless of course it can be used to make atomic weapons or launch a shuttle into space. But some of the most important things occurring here on earth are simply over looked or purposefully ignored. It would be to your advantage to know more about environmental science, including how DDT affects humans and the environment. And do realize, DDT’s advantages are outweighed by far by their disadvantages.
Do you know what DDT stands for?... Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. How does that sound even remotely like it could do the body good? Chlorine alone sounds bad enough, but it appears five times in that single compound! Does that really sound like an advantageous chemical to you?
Reply
First of all, I've got to defend MYSELF here, and not just the DDT thing. I seem to have created quite an anti-environment image for myself, but I assure you, compared to the radical right I AM an environmentalist. I can't stand any of Bush's bullshit environmental proposals, like the 'Healthy Forests' initiative (paving the way for clearcutting [haha nice pun there eh?]) and the 'Clear Skies' Act, which actually INCREASES pollutants into the air. I Was there to witness Clinton's last presidential initiative, which protected over 40 million acres of American land from development, only to have it be the FIRST act for Bush to strike down. I AM FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. I think about carbon dioxide emissions everyday, and how I wish there was something I could do right now to slow the outpour. Americans buy something like 15 million cars EVERY YEAR. Guh. And China's up next, ready to overtake America as the world power in about every way. Don't forget that countries like China and India were given a break from the Kyoto Accords, being left out on the basis that they were 'developing countries.' Whether that was a good move or not, I still don't know.
I think where I differ from you guys (avoiding the phrase 'you people' ;) ) is that I would sooner save lives than the environment. As long as both in the short and long run more lives are better off, then the environment comes second. I hate cars not only because they uglify the world, but our grandchildren will be paying for it a hundred years from now.
And as for your hit on politicians, I think I agree with you. But the point is moot here, because you have to realize that politicians (or at least American ones) aren't involved here. We've largely left Africa to their own problems, something that needs to change. We SHOULD be involved, and in the right way. The use of DDT against malaria is not some cheap political ploy to sideswipe the issue, it's done because 'from a medical point of view, there's nothing better, safer, or cheaper than indoor spraying.' (from the article) Notice SAFER there, it's an important point.
Because it's like I said before, the use of DDT here is VERY different from the agricultural uses of the past. Please realize this! With farms, DDT was spread freely everywhere over everything, with no regard or knowledge or drawbacks. With malaria, a VERY SMALL amount is sprayed indoors, keep in mind this is not sprayed everywhere around the house, and it completely eliminates risk of malaria. Yes, it's a dire measure, but dire issues call for it.
The people trying to fight this aren't doing it because it's easy, they're doing it because it's the most effective for it's price. Yes, it is cheap, but these people are on a pretty damn cheap budget, and maybe if the U.S. gave a little more support, it could be avoided. But it still remains not only the cheapest, but the most EFFECTIVE use against malaria. If they say it saves more lives than kills, then I'm for it.
And as for vector control, read what they say about it! 'Vector control-killing the mosquitoes before they hatch-is another key tool to reducing transmission rates. Satellite technology is being employed to help predict outbreaks and locate breeding grounds to direct spraying operations.' NOTE THAT: 'spraying operations' I haven't researched vector control more than that, but it doesn't sound very environmentally friendly to me.
I'm not sure if I want to be a politician and never have been. This time around, I'm always keeping the option open that I will hate politics and want to do something else. It's just what I'm interested in in my life right now and if I end up making a career out of it, then great. But I will take your advice and take an environmental science class, and hopefully I won't get another Carabell. Did you know I actually LIKED science before her, but now I hate it? Sad, sad, state of affairs.
Anyway, I'm open for more arguing (correction: 'discussing') if you still want to. It's been interesting.
Reply
Leave a comment