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