Engineer Indur Goklany, a frequent contributor to WUWT and occasional commenter has more than a few things to say about commenter Ed Darrell’s views on Malaria posted on WUWT yesterday. There’s so much in fact, that I’ve dedicated a whole guest post to it. -Anthony
Guest Post by Indur Goklany
Ed Darrell has two sets of comments, one of which, I believe, is fundamentally flawed, and the other I would agree with, at the risk of being accused by Alexander Feht of being obsequious once again (See Alexander’s comment on September 11, 2010 at 11:28 am).
A. Ed Darrell on September 12, 2010 at 7:40 pm, responding to tarpon said:
In 1972, about two million people died from malaria, worldwide.
In 2008, about 880,000 people died from malaria, worldwide. That’s fewer than half the mortality the year the U.S. stopped DDT spraying on cotton.
If it’s cause-effect you were trying to establish, I think you missed.
RESPONSE: The flaws in Ed’s analysis are aplenty.
First, although the US banned DDT in 1972, its use continued in much of the rest of the world. [If I remember correctly, the Swedes had banned it earlier.] In fact, US production of DDT for developing country use continued into the mid-1980s. Also, it took a few years for US environmentalists to ensure that the US domestic ban was — in the best traditions of cultural imperialism and bearing the white man’s burden — exported to other countries [without their (informed) consent, mind you]. [Notably, the US ban was imposed only after malaria had been wiped out in the US for practical purposes. See Figure 13, here.] In addition, countries had stockpiles which they continued to use, and not all developed countries were initially on board with eliminating DDT use worldwide. Furthermore, by 2008 some developing countries that had stopped DDT use had resumed its use. So it is not meaningful to use either 1972 or 2008 as endpoints for developing global estimates for the efficacy (or lack of it) of DDT in dealing with malaria..
Second, while DDT is in many instances the cheapest and most cost-effective method of reducing malaria (where it works, because it doesn’t always work) the death and disease rates are also sensitive to other factors, none of which have remained stationary between 1972 and 2008. These factors include general health status, adequate food and nutrition, public health services, and so on. So, it makes little sense, without adequately accounting for these factors, to compare deaths for malaria (or death rates, which would be more correct) between 1972 and 2008 to say anything about the effectiveness of DDT.
Fortunately, though, we have results of some “policy experiments” which were undertaken inadvertently — undertaken, I note, without the consent of the subjects of these experiments, something that would not be allowed in any hospital in the US, I suspect. These “experiments” allow us to evaluate the benefit of DDT (or lack thereof). As noted here (pp. 7-8) in a paper published a decade ago by Africa Fighting Malaria, it was noted that:
“Given the higher costs and, possibly, the greater efficacy of DDT, it is not surprising that despite the theoretical availability of substitutes, malaria rebounded in many poor areas where (and when) DDT usage was discontinued (WHO 1999a; Roberts 1999, Roberts et al. 1997, Sharma 1996, Whelan 1992, Guarda et al. 1999, Bate 2000). For instance, malaria incidences in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) dropped from 2.8 million in the 1940s to less than 20 in 1963 (WHO 1999a, Whelan 1992). DDT spraying was stopped in 1964, and by 1969 the number of cases had grown to 2.5 million. Similarly, malaria was nearly eradicated in India in the early 1960s, and its resurgence coincided with shortages in DDT (Sharma 1996). The population at high- to medium risk of contracting malaria in Colombia and Peru doubled between 1996 and 1997 (Roberts et al. 2000b). Malaria has also reappeared in several other areas where it had previously been suppressed, if not eradicated (e.g., Madagascar, Swaziland, the two Koreas, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan; Roberts et al. 2000b, and references therein). Similarly, Roberts et al. (1997) showed that Latin American countries (e.g., Ecuador, Belize, Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil and Venezuela) which had discontinued or decreased spraying of DDT inside homes saw malaria rates increase. Guarda et al. (1999) also note that in 1988, when DDT use was discontinued, there were no cases of Plasmodium falciparium reported in Loreto, Peru. The number of cases increased to 140 in 1991. By 1997, there were over 54,000 cases and 85 deaths (see, also, Goklany 2000c).
“But the best argument for indoor-spraying of DDT is that in many areas where malaria experienced a resurgence, reinstating DDT use once again led to declines in malaria cases. For example, Ecuador, which had previously seen its malaria rates rebound once DDT spraying had been reduced, saw those rates decline once again by 61 percent since 1993, when DDT use was increased again (Roberts et al. 1997). The same cycle occurred in Madagascar where the malaria epidemic of 1984-86, which occurred after the suspension of DDT use, killed 100,000 people. After two annual cycles of DDT spraying, malaria incidence declined 90 percent (Roberts et al. 2000b).”
Since then, we have results of the on-again and off-again policy with regard to DDT from KwaZulu-Natal Province in South Africa:
“DDT spraying in that area started in 1946. By 1974, Anopheles funestes, the mosquito species associated with year-round prevalence of malaria in that region, had been eradicated [see Figure below.]. In the 1991/1992 malaria season, the number of malaria cases was around 600 in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). However, in 1996, DDT was replaced by synthetic pyrethroids. In 1999 members of A. funestus were found in houses in KZN that had been sprayed. In 1999/2000, there were more than 40,000 cases in KZN. In 2000, DDT was brought back. By 2002, the number of cases had dropped to 3,500.” Source: Pre-edited version of Goklany (2007), pp.79-180.
See the Figure 1.
I have also provided additional references below, if one is interested in following up.
For a broader discussion, I recommend the chapter, “Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT,” in The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001). A previous version of this chapter is available free at http://goklany.org/library/DDT%20and%20PP.PDF.
Figure 1: From Goklany (2007), based on R. Tren, “IRS & DDT in Africa — past and present successes,” 54th Annual Meeting, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
B. Ed Darrell on September 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm said, “We may not beat malaria by 2014, but it won’t be because the Gates Foundation is on the wrong path.”
RESPONSE: I agree. For a long time, malaria control was neglected. Even the World Health Organization would not recommend DDT use indoors. It was revived, and even became (almost) chic thanks to a number of very high profile individuals including George Bush and Bill Gates, as well as lesser known people such as Don Roberts, Amir Attaran, Roger Bate and Richard Tren (all associated with Africa Fighting Malaria) . I delude myself into thinking that I played a minor role in helping ensure that DDT did not get banned outright under the Stockholm Convention.
Whatever people may think of Bill Gates stance on global warming, there is little doubt that he exhibited substantial political courage in espousing malaria control with DDT. That’s essentially why I was/am disappointed by his posting that set me off on this blog.
Perhaps I should have titled my piece, “Et tu Bill Gates!”
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
D. R. Roberts, et al. “DDT, global strategies, and a malaria control crisis in South America,” Emerging Infectious Diseases 3 (1997): 295-301 (1997).
D.R. Roberts, et al., “A Probability Model of Vector Behavior: Effects of DDT Repellency, Irritancy, and Toxicity in Malaria Control,” Journal of Vector Control 25 (2000): 48-61.
Karen I. Barnes et al., “Effect of Artemether Lumefantrine Policy and Improved Vector Control on Malaria Burden in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa,” Public Library of Science Medicine (2005): DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020330.
P. E. Duffy and T. K. Mutabingwa, “Rolling Back a Malaria Epidemic in South Africa,” Public Library of Science Medicine (2005): DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020368.
R. Tren, “IRS & DDT in Africa — past and present successes,” 54th Annual Meeting, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
D. H. Roberts, “Policies to Stop/Prevent Indoor Residual Spraying for Malaria Control,” 54th Annual Meeting, ASTMH, Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
I.M. Goklany, The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001). Chapter 2 deals with malaria and DDT.
Ed Darrell has two sets of comments, one of which, I believe, is fundamentally flawed, and the other I would agree with, at the risk of being accused by Alexander Feht of being obsequious once again (See Alexander’s comment on September 11, 2010 at 11:28 am).
A. Ed Darrell on September 12, 2010 at 7:40 pm, responding to tarpon said:
In 1972, about two million people died from malaria, worldwide.
In 2008, about 880,000 people died from malaria, worldwide. That’s fewer than half the mortality the year the U.S. stopped DDT spraying on cotton.
If it’s cause-effect you were trying to establish, I think you missed.
RESPONSE: The flaws in Ed’s analysis are aplenty.
First, although the US banned DDT in 1972, its use continued in much of the rest of the world. [If I remember correctly, the Swedes had banned it earlier.] In fact, US production of DDT for developing country use continued into the mid-1980s. Also, it took a few years for US environmentalists to ensure that the US domestic ban was — in the best traditions of cultural imperialism and bearing the white man’s burden — exported to other countries [without their (informed) consent, mind you]. [Notably, the US ban was imposed only after malaria had been wiped out in the US for practical purposes. See Figure 13, here.] In addition, countries had stockpiles which they continued to use, and not all developed countries were initially on board with eliminating DDT use worldwide. Furthermore, by 2008 some developing countries that had stopped DDT use had resumed its use. So it is not meaningful to use either 1972 or 2008 as endpoints for developing global estimates for the efficacy (or lack of it) of DDT in dealing with malaria..
Second, while DDT is in many instances the cheapest and most cost-effective method of reducing malaria (where it works, because it doesn’t always work) the death and disease rates are also sensitive to other factors, none of which have remained stationary between 1972 and 2008. These factors include general health status, adequate food and nutrition, public health services, and so on. So, it makes little sense, without adequately accounting for these factors, to compare deaths for malaria (or death rates, which would be more correct) between 1972 and 2008 to say anything about the effectiveness of DDT.
Fortunately, though, we have results of some “policy experiments” which were undertaken inadvertently — undertaken, I note, without the consent of the subjects of these experiments, something that would not be allowed in any hospital in the US, I suspect. These “experiments” allow us to evaluate the benefit of DDT (or lack thereof). As noted here (pp. 7-8) in a paper published a decade ago by Africa Fighting Malaria, it was noted that:
“Given the higher costs and, possibly, the greater efficacy of DDT, it is not surprising that despite the theoretical availability of substitutes, malaria rebounded in many poor areas where (and when) DDT usage was discontinued (WHO 1999a; Roberts 1999, Roberts et al. 1997, Sharma 1996, Whelan 1992, Guarda et al. 1999, Bate 2000). For instance, malaria incidences in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) dropped from 2.8 million in the 1940s to less than 20 in 1963 (WHO 1999a, Whelan 1992). DDT spraying was stopped in 1964, and by 1969 the number of cases had grown to 2.5 million. Similarly, malaria was nearly eradicated in India in the early 1960s, and its resurgence coincided with shortages in DDT (Sharma 1996). The population at high- to medium risk of contracting malaria in Colombia and Peru doubled between 1996 and 1997 (Roberts et al. 2000b). Malaria has also reappeared in several other areas where it had previously been suppressed, if not eradicated (e.g., Madagascar, Swaziland, the two Koreas, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan; Roberts et al. 2000b, and references therein). Similarly, Roberts et al. (1997) showed that Latin American countries (e.g., Ecuador, Belize, Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil and Venezuela) which had discontinued or decreased spraying of DDT inside homes saw malaria rates increase. Guarda et al. (1999) also note that in 1988, when DDT use was discontinued, there were no cases of Plasmodium falciparium reported in Loreto, Peru. The number of cases increased to 140 in 1991. By 1997, there were over 54,000 cases and 85 deaths (see, also, Goklany 2000c).
“But the best argument for indoor-spraying of DDT is that in many areas where malaria experienced a resurgence, reinstating DDT use once again led to declines in malaria cases. For example, Ecuador, which had previously seen its malaria rates rebound once DDT spraying had been reduced, saw those rates decline once again by 61 percent since 1993, when DDT use was increased again (Roberts et al. 1997). The same cycle occurred in Madagascar where the malaria epidemic of 1984-86, which occurred after the suspension of DDT use, killed 100,000 people. After two annual cycles of DDT spraying, malaria incidence declined 90 percent (Roberts et al. 2000b).”
Since then, we have results of the on-again and off-again policy with regard to DDT from KwaZulu-Natal Province in South Africa:
“DDT spraying in that area started in 1946. By 1974, Anopheles funestes, the mosquito species associated with year-round prevalence of malaria in that region, had been eradicated [see Figure below.]. In the 1991/1992 malaria season, the number of malaria cases was around 600 in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). However, in 1996, DDT was replaced by synthetic pyrethroids. In 1999 members of A. funestus were found in houses in KZN that had been sprayed. In 1999/2000, there were more than 40,000 cases in KZN. In 2000, DDT was brought back. By 2002, the number of cases had dropped to 3,500.” Source: Pre-edited version of Goklany (2007), pp.79-180.
See the Figure 1.
I have also provided additional references below, if one is interested in following up.
For a broader discussion, I recommend the chapter, “Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT,” in The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001). A previous version of this chapter is available free at http://goklany.org/library/DDT%20and%20PP.PDF.
Figure 1: From Goklany (2007), based on R. Tren, “IRS & DDT in Africa — past and present successes,” 54th Annual Meeting, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
B. Ed Darrell on September 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm said, “We may not beat malaria by 2014, but it won’t be because the Gates Foundation is on the wrong path.”
RESPONSE: I agree. For a long time, malaria control was neglected. Even the World Health Organization would not recommend DDT use indoors. It was revived, and even became (almost) chic thanks to a number of very high profile individuals including George Bush and Bill Gates, as well as lesser known people such as Don Roberts, Amir Attaran, Roger Bate and Richard Tren (all associated with Africa Fighting Malaria) . I delude myself into thinking that I played a minor role in helping ensure that DDT did not get banned outright under the Stockholm Convention.
Whatever people may think of Bill Gates stance on global warming, there is little doubt that he exhibited substantial political courage in espousing malaria control with DDT. That’s essentially why I was/am disappointed by his posting that set me off on this blog.
Perhaps I should have titled my piece, “Et tu Bill Gates!”
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
D. R. Roberts, et al. “DDT, global strategies, and a malaria control crisis in South America,” Emerging Infectious Diseases 3 (1997): 295-301 (1997).
D.R. Roberts, et al., “A Probability Model of Vector Behavior: Effects of DDT Repellency, Irritancy, and Toxicity in Malaria Control,” Journal of Vector Control 25 (2000): 48-61.
Karen I. Barnes et al., “Effect of Artemether Lumefantrine Policy and Improved Vector Control on Malaria Burden in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa,” Public Library of Science Medicine (2005): DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020330.
P. E. Duffy and T. K. Mutabingwa, “Rolling Back a Malaria Epidemic in South Africa,” Public Library of Science Medicine (2005): DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020368.
R. Tren, “IRS & DDT in Africa — past and present successes,” 54th Annual Meeting, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
D. H. Roberts, “Policies to Stop/Prevent Indoor Residual Spraying for Malaria Control,” 54th Annual Meeting, ASTMH, Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
I.M. Goklany, The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001). Chapter 2 deals with malaria and DDT.
Sponsored IT training links:
Guaranteed 642-524 preparation with latest 640-553 dumps and HP0-S27 practice exam!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
kadaka, you keep claiming to be charitable when you are anything but. If you had read the article I linked you would have noticed this: ” for detailed results see [25].”, as well as repeated references to [25] whenever costs were discussed. Reference [25] is the full 130 page report that the paper is based on. Feel free to read it, come back here, and apologize.
Your demands that DDT continue to be used even when the mosquitoes are resistant to it, suggest that you just want to spray DDT to spite environmentalists are indifferent to the malaria deaths that would result from such ineffective measures against malaria.
Dear Spence UK, see: Use of DDT in vector control: Conclusions of Study Group on Vector Control for Malaria and Other Mosquito-Borne Diseases, 16–24 November 1993. Quoting from the article:
Tim, thanks for coming back with the response – but that isn’t actually what I asked for.
I asked for evidence that the WHO promoted DDT as “the insecticide of choice”, not literature saying it is no longer the insecticide of choice, which your quote provides.
It takes little or no political guts to make claims like that 1993 one which would clearly appease the green movement. It takes genuine political courage to stand out – say in the late 1980s – and actually state that DDT is the insecticide of choice. That is what I asked for, and still waiting to see any evidence of.
The problem is, lacking the political guts to do what is right costs lives. Just as the switch from DDT to malathion in Sri Lanka in 1977 saw a surge in malaria deaths from single figures per year to 100 per year. The supposedly “more effective”, more expensive insecticide was anything but. Even after some resistance developed, the evidence suggests DDT was more effective – but of course politically difficult to maintain, thanks to demonisation of the chemical by the green movement.
An irrational demonisation that continues to this day. Check out the false positive result quoted by Hank Roberts, promoted heavily by political advocates and the media, subsequently described by more objective scientists as lacking any kind of scepticism; this is cargo cult science. Thankfully, fewer and fewer people are listening to this, and it is good to see DDT programs in place in the 21st century – where they belong.
I’ll post no more on this thread, I think we have probably taken the useful discussion as far as it is likely to go, but I would be genuinely interested if you do have any evidence of the type I requested above.
From: Tim Lambert on September 20, 2010 at 8:58 am
What I noticed was in “Cost-effectiveness calculations,” namely:
You presented a peer-reviewed paper, I commented on a peer-reviewed paper, you tossed in something from an unpublished report as if it came from the peer-reviewed paper. Use of a reference does not confer peer-reviewed status to the reference, nor does it indicate the paper’s author(s) accept everything in the reference. Currently this reference has as much status as a Greenpeace flyer.
The links are messed up. It should be ” Operations, costs and cost-effectiveness of five insecticide treated net programs (Eritrea, Malawi, Tanzania, Togo, Senegal) and two indoor residual spraying programs (KwaZulu-Natal, Mozambique).” “PubMed Abstract” link goes to “Analysis of force generation during flagellar assembly through optical trapping of free-swimming Chlamydomonas reinhardtii.” “Publisher Full Text” link is a paywall to the full paper. Of course those links shouldn’t be there anyway, as it’s an unpublished report. Guess the pdf link is the only one there…
You said:
As stated, “Even using IRS” is meaningless. Inside the unpublished report I find… Either you have misrepresented the facts or you either didn’t look deep enough or didn’t understand the significance.
What you have stated, I cannot find in the text. One must look at certain tables within the chapters on the KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa) and Mozambique IRS programs.
Let’s start with Chapter 13: Costs and Effects of Indoor Residual Spraying in KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa), pg 94. The time frame extended from 1997 to 1999, two annual spraying rounds (only once a year). As mentioned on pg 99 and elsewhere, the synthetic pyrethroid deltamethrin was used at the time of the study. How they estimated the costs are found on pg 99, and they look to have a bit of leeway to them. From Table 59 on pg 100, cost per person (2005 USD) for deltamethrin was 3.27, DDT was 3.52, a 25-cent difference. Before you start crowing, actually read the following text, as found in the Discussion section starting on that page:
Your modern pesticide, marginally cheaper, wasn’t doing the job. DDT was brought in as the more effective replacement. How many lives were lost while saving that quarter a head? Is this how you define “cost effective”?
Chapter 15: Costs and Effects of Indoor Residual Spraying in Southern Mozambique, pg 106, tells a similar tale. 1999-2001 but actually only one year of spraying, done twice a year. Back in Chapter 14: Indoor Residual Spraying in southern Mozambique (Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative) which started on pg 102, it is mentioned on pg 103 that bendiocarb, a carbamate insecticide, was used during the period of the study. Referring to Table 67 found on pg 110, figuring on two rounds of spraying, the cost per person (2005 USD) was highest for benidocarb at 3.90, DDT was 2.89, while deltamethrin was 2.65. However, again, see the following in the “Discussion” section on pg 111:
At the top of pg 104 the change is noted, the pricey stuff is still used on brick/concrete structures. So for the traditional structures, not only did they save by going to DDT, they saved more by being able to go to a once-a-year spraying schedule. As things go locally, given conditions like how long is the “malaria season” and other factors, it is unknown if the marginally-cheaper deltamethrin could be likewise used only once a year. However, as revealed at the bottom of pg 103:
Therefore deltamethrin wasn’t even a candidate for use, thus DDT was the cheapest of the ones suitable for use, and the most cost effective.
Let’s recap!
1. You presented something gleaned from a few tables of an unpublished report as if part of a peer-reviewed paper, then took offense when called out on it.
2. The first example of deltamethrin being the most cost effective insecticide, showed it marginally cheaper but less effective than DDT, and it was replaced by DDT.
3. Second example, deltamethrin wasn’t even in consideration thus DDT was the most cost effective.
4. You’re awaiting an apology.
Bub, [snip]
Actually I’m looking for the most “bang for the buck,” considering the comprehensiveness of the protection as well as mere per person cost. If we’re going to get rid of malaria from a region, we have to protect everyone possible in a region. Indoor spraying of DDT keeps looking good.
Plus I’ve presented evidence showing that DDT remains effective even after the mosquitoes have been declared resistant due to its nature as also a repellent and irritant, suitable for indoor spraying. You still haven’t refuted that.
Instead, you’ve basically just said I’d be happy to watch people die just to piss off some enviro-wackos.
Bub, if I really wanted to point out who’s willing to let people die due to a personal agenda by denying them the most effective prevention method while insisting inferior products are just as good….
Re: my previous post:
Mods, that was worthy of a snip, even without any profanity?
Oh well, no skin off my nose. And yeah, given the upstream noise I can see how such may a touchy subject.
[mod note – marginal call on my part and only a tiny snip – call me sensitive ~ac]
Whoops, previous post (awaiting moderation) should have been “may be a” instead of just “may a”. Not that it matters much…
[snip] We are not going to talk about Tobacco Eli, no way no how, back to your rabbet hole – Anthony
Insecticide Treated Nets vs. Indoor Residual Spraying
First, the two are not mutually exclusive.
According to an August 2010 Cochrane Review (from the Cochrane Collaboration), with respect to IRS:
[Emphasis added.]
And with respect to ITN, the Cochrane Collaboration Reviews, which is the source of the number of deaths and DALYs saved in the paper that Tim Lambert linked to (Yukich, Lengeler, Tediosi et al. 2008), has this to say:
[Source: Lengeler C. Insecticide-treated bed nets and curtains for preventing malaria. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD000363. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000363.pub2 at http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000363.html.%5D
If both are used together, then based on the above, uncomplicated malaria in stable areas could be reduced 75% (since both seem to be about 50% efficient by themselves, and assuming no synergies and/or antagonism. See the material emphasized in the above).
Second, having slept as a kid under mosquito nets (the non-impregnated variety) and in houses that were sprayed indoors, the quality of life under bednets is much poorer. You are literally in a cage – admittedly made of polyester nowadays rather than iron – about 6 ft.x 3ft x 4-5ft (see http://www.healing-hearts.co.uk/images/nets.jpg). It substantially reduces airflow, which makes for sweltering and uncomfortable nights in warm weather. As described in this travel piece at http://www.montereyherald.com/food/ci_15209305?nclick_check=1:
IRS would address both the termite and mosquito problems!
In addition, because an ITN is a screen, it cuts down light, which makes it harder to read in bed (assuming you have a light) — an important consideration for those with poor eyesight. You can’t do much inside it, other than lie supine. At least with IRS, one has the run of the house, even if it’s small. So ITNs might be OK for infants, who don’t have much of a choice, but they are very restrictive for virtually anyone else.
In other words, if required to choose between one or the other, in my opinion, IRS is superior. And, in fact, as a kid, that’s what I did: I didn’t use a mosquito net when sleeping at home, which was sprayed indoors, and elsewhere, often chose not to sleep under — really, inside — one (unless the mosquitoes were unbearable).
Re: Indur M. Goklany on September 20, 2010 at 7:23 pm
If one considers using nets at all, then they had best be the long-lasting insecticide-impregnated nets like those distributed by Nothing But Nets. A four year lifespan is cited, without re-treatment needed. ITN’s are cited as effective even when torn due to the insecticide, normally because the mosquitoes are being killed although repellent and irritant effects would be needed to prevent biting and thus transmission of disease. There are situations where nets are most beneficial, such as nomads and individuals in transit, in other words they are not occupying fixed-location housing suitable for indoor spraying. I do however wonder about the irony of declaring a net that should be hung to be suitable for when you have no place to hang your hat.
Which lead me to wonder if we have constrained ourselves with an old model. We have the ability to impregnate a mesh fabric with a repellent in a durable manner. Why aren’t we using the fabric to make sleeping gowns? Lightweight “covers” we slip into at night, or even wear around the house or outdoors. The repellent will keep the mosquitoes at bay, they will be minimally constrictive, the face will not have to be covered so breathing is not impeded. They can have a hood, for the hood and at the leg and hand openings they can have things for a closer fit like drawstrings, elastic, buttons or velcro. They will need some level of water resistance, but I will assume that with a bed net good for four years it has been already figured they will be washed a few times thus the issue is likely already taken into account.
I can envision the product, see myself using it. It would be good for camping, just something to throw on quick before going to sleep, or even for wearing around the campsite. If I wasn’t worried about it getting snagged on branches and ripped, I may find it preferable while moving through the woods to hosing myself down with DEET. Heck, it might be good for fishing off a boat or on the shore.
Why aren’t we making these now?
Since I have viewed the film 3 Billion and Counting, I have found a lot of talk about DDT both for and against it. What frustrates me the most is those who refuse to investigate the facts that were kept from us for close to 40 years now. I had been a supporter of the ban. However, now, I can’t deny the truth that I have been shown. I know many who have spent their time and energy keeping the ban going. Have they ever considered that their life work has been for people DYING? Have they ever considered that their support to ban a perfectly SAFE product that can save human life .. could also work to save their life? Do they not consider themselves Human? And have they ever considered .. if they wipe out humans (there self must be included) then there would be no HUMANS to testify to the fact that the eco system is working fine? HUMAN LIFE has to be valued above the eco system. Humans are Gods Nobelest Invention.
Check out http://www.3billionandcounting.com and allow yourself to be introduced to some FACTS. It will amaze and shock you, for sure.
Someone made a comment that they like some “insects” better than some humans. I prefer the company of my cat to one of my neighbors, however, I would not save my cat ahead of this neighbor! The insanity of keeping misinformation about DDT going has got to stop! If you do not value your life .. by all means end it. However, don’t devalue the right for others to live .. because you want to save your favored insects!
It seems the main obstacle in this dilemma are the policies in place. These are environmental in nature. The view being that ” nature ” is more important than man and industrialism. The tendency right now is to dis-mantle industrialism and reduce the population of the world. Industrialism is in desperate need to be developed in Africa. Electricity, water, housing, sanitation, food and a higher standard of living needs to be brought about. The blockage to this is that population control and de-industrialization go hand in hand and this is the world policy at the moment. The reason for this new move to lower carbon expenditure is primarily to promote the agenda of de-industrialization. The ban on DDT was mainly to promote the other side of this which is population control. Unless there is a reversal of the world policy ( population control/de-industrialization) in place nothing much could be done to eliminate malaria. What is needed is to expose the DDT/CARBON fraud. The DDT hoax brought the environmental movement and it’s sustainable development ( de-industrialization) philosophy into power. The CARBON hoax is now being implemented by this group in power to further their agenda in this task. Both of these hoaxes must be exposed to the light of day. If the foundation to this “Big Lie ” which is mainly a barrage of constant disinformation about the evils of DDT and CARBON is exposed then the tipping point will be reached among the people of the world and the hoax will disappear as all illusion does when exposed by truth. DDT is safe and is absolutely indispensable in combating malaria mosquitoes because of it’s repellent quality which is it’s main attribute. Carbon is safe and indispensable to life and productive development.
Here’s something I just found from the Senate Committee Hearing on Environment..this is just the last paragraph:
Pressures to eliminate spray programs, and DDT in particular, are wrong. I say this not based on some projection of what might theoretically happen in the future according to some model, or some projection of theoretical harms, I say this based firmly on what has already occurred. The track record of the anti-pesticide lobby is well documented, the pressures on developing countries to abandon their spray programs are well documented, and the struggles of developing countries to maintain their programs or restart their uses of DDT for malaria control are well documented. The tragic results of pressures against the use of DDT, in terms of increasing disease and death, are quantified and well documented. How long will scientists, public health officials, the voting public, and the politicians who lead us continue policies, regulations and funding that have led us to the current state of a global humanitarian disaster? How long will support continue for policies and programs that favor phantoms over facts?
You can read all of it here:
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=246769
I’ve been enjoying this lively debate about DDT! You folks might want to checkout these two sites:
http://www.facebook.com/3billionandcounting http://www.youtube.com/user/3billionandcounting
They are very Interesting and very Controversial! COMPELLING!