More on WHO's New Support of DDT:

Grist rounds up additional coverage of the World Health Organization's decision to be more supportive of DDT use for malaria control. Of note, some environmentalist organizations, such as the Sierra Club, are reluctantly supporting the move.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. More on WHO's New Support of DDT:
  2. WHO Backs DDT Use:
M (mail):
Anyone wanting to know about the DDT controversy can do much, much worse than starting at Tim Lambert's blog. He has a large number of posts on the subject collected here:
9.18.2006 11:38pm
raj (mail):
I second M's reference to Tim Lambert's Deltoid blog. There is a lot of misinformation regarding regulatory issues of DDT, and Lambert provides an excellent corrective.
9.19.2006 8:31am
farmer56 (mail):
OK, this drive me nuts. People with no knowledge, just an opinion.

1st assume everything stated in the linked sites. Next calculate the millions of lives saved if DDT is used. And finally…. The downside is what? Answer? Millions of lives saved.

Yes DDT it self is not the answer. But if? You want to save lives of the most disadvantaged people of the world; it is a hell of a start.

Mosquitoes do in fact develop resistance to DDT. Why? Because DDT works on a very concise system in insects. As you use any pesticide this is obvious. As less control is achieved more pesticide is used. But. If you study the issue, you learn that DDT is not the only solution. It is in the mix of several different insecticides with DDT that will dramatically reduce death

The down side? Well DDT has NEVER been proven to cause cancer. Even if it did, (and it does not) Death at 60 years, or 60 months?
9.19.2006 10:24am
The conventional-wisdom downside of DDT has nothing to do with its (purported) effects on humans. The claim was that DDT was bad for birds.
9.19.2006 9:34pm
farmer56 (mail):
So much for convetional 'wisdom'.... The American Bald Eagle population was in decline 30 years before DDT was used. Soooo it is not the birds. but it is population control of the most poor on the planet.
9.19.2006 10:30pm