[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[afro-nets] AFM's response to the Berkeley study on DDT (3)
- From: "Philip Coticelli" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:55:24 -0400
AFM's response to the Berkeley study on DDT (3)
Jeff wrote, *"I suggest that everyone take a look at this:
* Below is an excerpt from this webpage.
I am curious as to how you would respond to this and the core point which is DDT because of its overuse in many areas has become ineffective, thus leading to its decreased use.." *
Dear Jeff, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with internet access. I can go over there now and insert or delete whatever I want. So can you. Please don't assume anything posted there on any issue is authoritative.
Here is all you need to know about DDT: according to the World Health Organization, DDT is both safe and highly effective for malaria control when sprayed once or twice a year high up on the inside walls of homes and dwellings (indoor residual spraying, or IRS). DDT should of course not be used where a critical degree of resistance is observed. However, since resistance is both a fact of life and a function of exposure, DDT's limited use with IRS makes its observed and potential rates of resistance significantly lower than synthetic pyrethroids, which are used across Africa both for IRS and for agriculture. Note that crop-spraying for agriculture deploys more insecticide than IRS by several orders of magnitude.
Back to global warming, which has obvious implications for the DDT debate - do you draw any distinction between individuals paid by the energy industry to discredit global warming theory and individuals paid by academia and private foundations to substantiate it? The loudest voices in the debate certainly aren't volunteers, so what's the difference?
Note that Africa Fighting Malaria accepts no money from DDT or other insecticide producers. Our funders are listed on the website:
Africa Fighting Malaria