Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Vita vya Maradhi: Malaria;- DDT ndio jibu?

Discussion in 'Jukwaa la Siasa' started by Rev. Kishoka, Jan 12, 2009.

  1. Rev. Kishoka

    Rev. Kishoka JF-Expert Member

    #1
    Jan 12, 2009
    Joined: Mar 7, 2006
    Messages: 4,396
    Likes Received: 16
    Trophy Points: 135
    Heri ya Mwaka Mpya ndugu na jamaa.

    Mwishoni mwa mwaka jana 2008 wakati wa sikukuu ya Thanksgiving, moja wa wageni waliokuja nyumbani kwangu alikuwa ni Mmarekani aliyeniuliza kwa nini Afrika haitumii DDT kupigana na Malaria? Akauliza kama DDT ilitumika huku Marekani na sehemu nyingine duniani na kukawa na manufaa, kwa nini Afrika isitumike ambako uginjwa huu huua karibu watu Milioni Moja kila mwaka?

    Sikuwa na jibu sahihi zaidi ya kusema ni ushauri wa mashirika ya kimataifa na woga wa "kuharibu" mazingira kama tutatumia DDT.

    Najiuliza, je tumeshawahi kama Taifa kukaa chini na kujiuliza ni vipi vita vyetu dhidi wa maadui wa maendeleo na hasa maradhi tunaweza kuipigana wote kama Taifa ili kuondokana na msingi mmoja unaururudisha nyuma?

    Najua tuna TB, Kifua Kikuu, Polio, Ndui, Surua, Kichocho, Pnemounia, Kansa, Ukimwi, na kubwa zaidi ni Malaria.

    Je tukiweza kupiga vita Malaria kwa gharama zote na zozote kwa kutumia nguvu zetu zote na njia zote, kuna maafa au ubaya gani ili kupunguza shida hii?

    Mwaweza sema aah, hili ni jambo la JF Doctor au Sayansi, lakini naomba tuliangalie kwa mtaji wa kisiasa kwa maana kila kitu Tanzania hususan uhai wetu na maendeleo yetu kama Taifa yanaegemea Siasa.

    Jiulize ni nguvu kazi ya namna gani itakayopatikana ikiwa tutaweza kupiga vita na kushinda ugonjwa wa Malaria.

    Najiuliza tena, kukataa kwetu kutumia DDT ni suala la kufuata bendera kwa kuwa WHO na UN wametuambia? ni suala la kisiasa au nasi tunauwezo wa kufanya uamuzi huru bila kushinikizwa na kutumia DDT?

    Je DDT tukitumia kupigana vita dhidi ya Malaria pekee tunaweza kufanikiwa?
     
  2. Z

    Zungu Pule JF-Expert Member

    #2
    Jan 12, 2009
    Joined: Mar 7, 2008
    Messages: 1,550
    Likes Received: 167
    Trophy Points: 160
    Rev. Kishoka,

    Ninakumbuka mradi wa kutumia DDT kupambana na Malaria ulitakiwa kuanza Mwaka Jana (ukisimamiwa na Wizara ya Afya). Sijui kama mradi huu ulitekelezwa kama ilivyokuwa imepangwa. Mipango yote ilishakamilika. I think WHO was behind the move (not against). Wanamazingira ndio wapinzani wakubwa wa matumizi ya DDT kupambana na Malaria. Rachel Carson alipata umaarufu mkubwa kwa kuongoza campaign ya kupinga matumizi ya DDT ndani ya Marekani miaka ya 60. Then, campaign hiyo ikaenea dunia nzima ikiongozwa na wanamazingira. The main reasons are DDT is "not selective" - it kills everything (ecologically, this can lead to the collapse of some ecosystems) and it is "residual" - meaning it stays in the environment for a long time. It doesn't decompose easily.

    Well, kama ulivyosema nchi nyingi zilitumia DDT kupambana na Malaria. Katika Africa, ninafikiri ni South Africa pekee wanaotumia DDT kwa sasa. Binafsi ninaamini DDT itapunguza sana tatizo la Malaria kama ikitumika kwa uangalifu. Wizara ya Afya ilipanga ku-spray DDT kwenye kuta za nyumba na maeneo yanayozunguka makazi ya watu. Utaona kwamba, zoezi hili lisipofanyika kwa uangalifu, DDT inaweza kuleta madhara makubwa kwa binadamu. Na kimsingi zoezi hili halipaswi kuigharimu serikali kiasi kikubwa cha fedha. Ninavyokumbuka, Tanzania ni miongoni mwa nchi zenye stock kubwa ya DDT (I stand to be corrected).
     
  3. Z

    Zungu Pule JF-Expert Member

    #3
    Jan 12, 2009
    Joined: Mar 7, 2008
    Messages: 1,550
    Likes Received: 167
    Trophy Points: 160
    Rev. Kishoka,

    Ninakumbuka mradi wa kutumia DDT kupambana na Malaria ulitakiwa kuanza Mwaka Jana (ukisimamiwa na Wizara ya Afya). Sijui kama mradi huu ulitekelezwa kama ilivyokuwa imepangwa. Mipango yote ilishakamilika. I think WHO was behind the move (not against). Wanamazingira ndio wapinzani wakubwa wa matumizi ya DDT kupambana na Malaria. Rachel Carson alipata umaarufu mkubwa kwa kuongoza campaign ya kupinga matumizi ya DDT ndani ya Marekani miaka ya 60. Then, campaign hiyo ikaenea dunia nzima ikiongozwa na wanamazingira. The main reasons are DDT is "not selective" - it kills everything (ecologically, this can lead to the collapse of some ecosystems) and it is "residual" - meaning it stays in the environment for a long time. It doesn't decompose easily.

    Well, kama ulivyosema nchi nyingi zilitumia DDT kupambana na Malaria. Katika Africa, ninafikiri ni South Africa pekee wanaotumia DDT kwa sasa. Binafsi ninaamini DDT itapunguza sana tatizo la Malaria kama ikitumika kwa uangalifu. Wizara ya Afya ilipanga ku-spray DDT kwenye kuta za nyumba na maeneo yanayozunguka makazi ya watu. Utaona kwamba, zoezi hili lisipofanyika kwa uangalifu, DDT inaweza kuleta madhara makubwa kwa binadamu. Na kimsingi zoezi hili halipaswi kuigharimu serikali kiasi kikubwa cha fedha. Ninavyokumbuka, Tanzania ni miongoni mwa nchi zenye stock kubwa ya DDT (I stand to be corrected).
     
  4. v

    vassil Senior Member

    #4
    Jan 12, 2009
    Joined: Apr 13, 2008
    Messages: 121
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 33
    I have had similar discussions with other folks, I read an article in Financial times back in 2002 that was very disturbing to me.It is estimated up to 20 million people may have died from malaria,unnecessarily,since most third world countries banned use of DDT under pressure from EU countries.It also pointed out India has been able to significantly reduce malaria in the country since it reintroduced use of DDT.Like in most issues,you must be doing the right thing if hear opposition from Europe.


    Commercial motive hinted at in restrictions on DDT
    By Alan Beattie in London

    Published: September 29 2005 03:00 | Last updated: September 29 2005 03:00

    Restrictions on the use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria have often been attacked by a group of campaigners who say the limitations are based on unsound science and cost lives in the developing world.

    Now those campaigners have told a US Senate committee that lobbying for the restrictions may be commercially motivated.

    DDT was once widely used on farms, but its use in agriculture dropped sharply from the 1970s because of concerns about its effect on the food chain, particularly on birds of prey. More recently, with malaria spreading in developing countries, some such as South Africa have sprayed DDT indoors to kill mosquitoes.

    But they face obstacles. The World Health Organisation (WHO) prefers using bed nets to DDT. And the European Union has warned Uganda about the risks to its food exports if it uses DDT.

    "While the EU fully acknowledges the urgent need to control malaria in Uganda, we are concerned about the impact the use of DDT might have on the country's exports of food products to the EU," the European Commission's Uganda delegation said last year.

    In congressional testimony, Richard Tren of the Africa Fighting Malaria campaign said lobbying for restrictions might have commercial motives. Mr Tren cited an email to health academics from Gerhard Hesse, business manager for "vector control" - eliminating carriers of disease - for Bayer CropScience, cautioning against DDT.

    Bayer manufactures alternative insecticides to DDT, which are generally more expensive. In the email, seen by the FT, Mr Hesse said: "We fully support EU to ban [sic] imports of agricultural products coming from countries using DDT." He said such a ban reflected the danger of DDT leaking into the agricultural system and ending up as residues in food.

    But Mr Hesse, who sits on the partnership board of the WHO's "Roll Back Malaria" coalition, also admits: "DDT use is for us a commercial threat."

    He argues that the commercial threat is not dramatic because of DDT's limited use, saying it is "mainly a public image threat".

    Mr Tren told the Senate committee: "We fear that commercial entities such as Bayer . . . are using bad science and fear about DDT in order to advance their own particular interests."

    In a statement, Bayer said Mr Hesse meant to refer purely to DDT for crop use. "Bayer CropScience rejects any interpretation that the company would support the EU move to ban imports of agricultural products coming from countries using DDT for company specific competitive reasons," it said.

    "Gerhard Hesse's statement in this respect was written in a way which might lead to wrong conclusions. It does not reflect the actual opinion of Mr Hesse and of Bayer CropScience."

    The EU said it did not ban food imports from countries using DDT but required them to comply with maximum residue limits.
    Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
     
  5. Mbu

    Mbu JF-Expert Member

    #5
    Jan 12, 2009
    Joined: Jan 11, 2007
    Messages: 12,703
    Likes Received: 92
    Trophy Points: 145
    ...:(tukale wapi? anyway, Kutumia DDT bila usafi wa mazingira, bila kuyakausha maji yalotuama, bila kujikinga kwa dawa, na kulala na vyandarua, itakuwa kazi bure kutokomeza malaria...


    ...Chart ya hapo juu inaonyesha circle haiwezi kukamilika kama hatua madhubuti za kujikinga kuumwa na mbu zitachukuliwa. Mbu wataendelea kuwapo, la msingi ni jitihada za makusudi kupunguza kiwango cha mazalia ya mbu hao na kiwango chao Vs human contact.
     
  6. Rev. Kishoka

    Rev. Kishoka JF-Expert Member

    #6
    Jan 12, 2009
    Joined: Mar 7, 2006
    Messages: 4,396
    Likes Received: 16
    Trophy Points: 135
    Mbu,

    Si heri utupe matende na mabusha na si Malaria;)?
     
  7. M

    Mkandara Verified User

    #7
    Jan 12, 2009
    Joined: Mar 3, 2006
    Messages: 15,419
    Likes Received: 76
    Trophy Points: 145
    Yote tisa tusipokufa na mbu tutakufa njaa na maradhi mengineyo yatokanayo na DDT...
    Wakuu navyoamini mimi kuna dawa za maradhi fulani amabzo zinatibu lakini zina side effects ambazo zinaweza kuwa na madhara makubwa zaidi baadaye kama vile cancer..Sasa ningeomba wasomi wa madawa watufahamishe vizuri kuwa hii habari ya DDT kama inavyoelezewa ni siasa tupu za hawa watu wa mazingira.. au ndio siasa za biashara kama zile za global warming!

    Check this website:- Effects of DDT
     
  8. Dark City

    Dark City JF-Expert Member

    #8
    Jan 12, 2009
    Joined: Oct 18, 2008
    Messages: 16,275
    Likes Received: 115
    Trophy Points: 160
    Kwa maoni yangu ni vyote (siasa za kibiashara na za watu wa mazingira). Lakini kubwa ni kuwa tatizo la malaria si lao. Hapa naamanisha kuwa malaria haiwagusi wakubwa! Kuna mtu mmoja alisema kuwa kama vifo vya malaria (about 1mil pa) vingekuwa vinatokea katika dunia ya kwanza basi ugonjawa huu ungeshatokomezwa siku nyingi. Alisema kuwa malaria ni sawa na kupakia watoto wadogo (chini ya miaka 5) kwenye boeing kubwa 2 halafu ukazibwaga chini na kuwaangamiza wote kila siku iendayo kwa Mungu. Hakuna nchi yoyote iliyoendelea na yenye watu makini ingekubali kitu kama hicho kwani response dhidi ya September 11 kila mtu aliiona. Na njia pekee na ya mwisho ya kuthibiti malaria ni kumwangamiza mbu kwa gharama yoyote. Hakuna njia ya mkato kuhusu hilo. Wakubwa wote (huko Magharibi wanalijua hili) na kwamba njia ya kufanya hivyo ni kutumia dawa zenye uwezo mkubwa, yaani DDT. Kwa sababu zao wakubwa na wanaharakati wa mazingira, matumizi ya DDT yalizuiliwa. Lakini wanasayansi wanaamini kuwa hakukuwa na bado hakuna ushahidi wa kuridhisha dhidi ya madai ya wanaharakati wa mazingira. Sisi huku (nchi masikini) tulishindwa kushikilia hapo na kuendelea kutumia DDT kutokana na umasikini wetu (wa pesa na akili) na utegemezi kwa wafadhili hata katika kupanga mipango ya muhimu kwa ajili ya maisha yetu.

    Habari njema ni kuwa hilo sasa limepatiwa suluhu na DDT imeruhusiwa kutumika kuthibiti malaria lakini kwa tahadhari sana ili isiharibu mazingira. Tayari imetumika huko Kagera na Zanzibar. Nadhani wizara ya Afya ina mipango au tayari inaitumia hata sehemu nyingine.
     
  9. Zakumi

    Zakumi JF-Expert Member

    #9
    Jan 12, 2009
    Joined: Sep 24, 2008
    Messages: 4,574
    Likes Received: 11
    Trophy Points: 135
    Rev Kishoka:


    Anayesambaza magonjwa ya malaria ni mbu. Mbu wazaliani katika maji yaliyo simama. Kwa hiyo miundo mbinu ya mifereji ya maji wanapoishi watu ni kitu muhimu sana.

    Hili somo nimejifunza darasa la tatu.

    Vilevile mbu wanazaliana kwenye nyasi nyasi. Hivyo njia moja ya kupambana ni kuacha kufuga na kulima mijini.

    Ukisoma takwimu za malaria utaona kuwa wakati wa masika, wagonjwa wanakuwa wengi. Na wakati wa kiangazi wagonjwa wanakuwa wachache. Hivyo basi maji yanayosimama wakati wa masika ni kiini kikubwa cha malaria.

    Na hata wanatumia DDT kuua mbu, hawatumii sumu au dawa hiyo sehemu zote. Wanatumia sehemu ambazo mbu wanazaliana kama vile madimbwi ya maji. Sasa kwanini tunayaangalia madimbwi ya maji yakiongezeka ?
     
  10. Steve Dii

    Steve Dii JF-Expert Member

    #10
    Sep 24, 2009
    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Messages: 6,414
    Likes Received: 40
    Trophy Points: 145
    Iwe kwa kutumia DDT, iwe kwa kuzibua mifereji, iwe kwa kuzingatia usafi, kukata nyasi... kila kitu kimeandikwa na wengi wetu tumejifunza tangu darasa la tatu. Lakini kwa jinsi vile miafrika ndivyo tulivyo - tunasubiria vyandarua kutoka kwa joji bush na mkewe, tunasubiria majaribio ya kinga ya malaria huko mexico, tunasubiria amri ya WHO na IMF kutumia DDT, tunasubiria mh. rais asafiri ng'ambo kuombeleza kwa wahisani fedha za kuzibulia mitaro na wawekezaji kwenye sekta ya usafi na mazingira.

    ...grrrr, i sometimes wish i was born chinese, but again, i wud miss so much my afro puffs and torn up muscles!!!!!!!
     
  11. W

    Wandugu Masanja JF-Expert Member

    #11
    Sep 24, 2009
    Joined: Apr 26, 2008
    Messages: 1,535
    Likes Received: 4
    Trophy Points: 135
    tafuta sababu ya kupigwa marufuku DDT sio mazingira ni biashara na tafuta nani aliyeanza hiyo propaganda ya mazingira,, nadokeza tu Biashara ya Tumbaku ndio kianzio na muanzio ni Marekani
     
  12. Steve Dii

    Steve Dii JF-Expert Member

    #12
    Sep 24, 2009
    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Messages: 6,414
    Likes Received: 40
    Trophy Points: 145
    Kwa makadirio kama ya miaka 60 tangu wao watokomeze malaria, wameweza kufocus kwenye magonjwa mengine... na wameishi bila adha hii. Kwa kupenda kuwasikiliza kwa kila kitu, nasi tukasitisha zoezi! Kuna kitu kisicho na madhara?!

    This issue is synonymous to the current nuclear proliferation stand-up and the embargo that goes with it. They managed to equip themselves with the war heads and now they don't want to let anybody else have their hands on the deadly stock. If South Africa are indeed carrying on large scale fumigation, I don't see why others in Africa should be held back so as to be in line with WHO recommendations or whoever that is against.
     
  13. MwanaHabari

    MwanaHabari JF-Expert Member

    #13
    Sep 24, 2009
    Joined: Nov 9, 2006
    Messages: 444
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    No one forced us to stop using DDT, it was advised due to its effects over time and our health officials took action, obviously this descision can be reversed at any time once they think it wont harm the ecosystem. It doesnt break down easily and other effects...use it at your own risk..many countries actually severely restrict it and some have outright banned it, the US banned the general use of it however it can be used here for public health emergencies.



    "...Many species of insects developed resistance to DDT, and DDT was also discovered to have a high toxicity toward fish.

    The chemical stability of DDT and its fat solubility compounded the problem. DDT is not metabolized very rapidly by animals; instead, it is deposited and stored in the fatty tissues. The biological half-life of DDT is about eight years; that is, it takes about eight years for an animal to metabolize half of the amount it assimilates. If ingestion continues at a steady rate, DDT builds up within the animal over time." Of particular concern is its potential to mimic hormones and thereby disrupt endocrine systems in wildlife and possibly humans. -source...science :)
     
  14. Steve Dii

    Steve Dii JF-Expert Member

    #14
    Sep 24, 2009
    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Messages: 6,414
    Likes Received: 40
    Trophy Points: 145
    So much for the scientific documentation about madhara ya ddt, while our populations perish and continue to suffer from malaria let alone the short and long term economic impact endured having to put up with malaria!
     
  15. MziziMkavu

    MziziMkavu JF-Expert Member

    #15
    Sep 25, 2009
    Joined: Feb 3, 2009
    Messages: 38,530
    Likes Received: 2,801
    Trophy Points: 280
    Marais wa Afrika kuangamiza Malaria
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    Vyandarua vya mbu kutolewa Marais kumi na wanne kutoka nchi za Afrika wanatarajiwa kuzindua mpango utakaosaidia bara hili katika kukabiliana na maradhi ya Malaria, kwa kipindi cha miaka sita.
    Zaidi ya dola bilioni tatu zimechangishwa kufadhili mradi wenyewe.
    Fedha hizo zitagharamia usambazaji wa vyandarua milioni mia mbili arobaini vya kukinga mbu na amabavyo vimetibiwa. Vyandarua hivyo vitasambazwa katika nchi kusini mwa jangwa la Sahara ifikapo mwishoni mwa mwaka ujao.
    Maradhi ya Malaria huchangia robo ya vifo vya watoto chini ya umri wa miaka mitano barani Afrika.
    Rwanda ni moja wapo ya nchi zinazohusika na mpango huu mpya na waziri wake wa afya Richard Sezeibera amekiri kuwa maradhi hayo yanatoa changamoto kubwa kanda hii.
    '' Malaria imeendelea kusababisha vifo zaidi ya ukimwi na kifua kikuu. Tunahitaji ufadhili zaidi kukabiliana na maradhi haya.'', Alisema waziri Sezebera.
    Aidha amesema hatua kadhaa zimepigwa katika kukabiliana na maradhi ya Malaria akiongeza mchango wa wanasiasa itasaidia kuleta ufanisi zaidi.
    Marais hao wa nchi za Afrika watatangaza muungano mpya, African Leaders Malaria Alliance {ALMA}.Uzinduzi huo utafanyika pembezoni mwa kongamano la Umoja wa Mataifa mjini New York Marekani.



    http://www.bbc.co.uk/swahili/news/story/2009/09/090924_alma_afrika.shtml
     
  16. Mwana va Mutwa

    Mwana va Mutwa JF-Expert Member

    #16
    Sep 25, 2009
    Joined: Jun 9, 2009
    Messages: 428
    Likes Received: 9
    Trophy Points: 35
    DDT

    Which scientist to be trusted? Debate goes on…

    By William Shao

    SOME studies indicate that the insecticide DDT was-and is-one a chief contributor to some potential ecological disaster. Because of the danger it poses, its uses, and then its production, DDT was banned from one country to another. But Ugandan scientists say it has no effects on the environment and human health.
    A Makerere University report released last Wednesday has said that the use of DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) in fighting malaria has no effect on the environment and human health. Dr Gabriel Bimenya, a University lecturer in the Faculty of Medicine, represented these findings to scientists, policy makers and academicians.
    The report said: "Spraying DDT does not create impotence, infertility, and abnormalities especially among women as it was recently alleged by antagonists and environmentalists."
    According to The African newspaper (Nov. 7, 2005), the research team included Professor Wilson Byarugaba, Dr Baterana Byarugaba, Andrew Okwii (all of Medical School) and Dr Myers Lugemwa of Mulango Hospital. Should they be believed?
    From historical point of view, DDT, a colorless chemical pesticide, was used to eradicate disease-carrying and crop-eating insects. It was first isolated in Germany in 1874, but not until 1939 did the Swiss Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Müller recognize it as a potent nerve poison on insects.
    First used heavily in World War II for pre-invasion spraying, DDT was disseminated in great quantities thereafter throughout the world to combat yellow fever, typhus, elephantiasis, and other insect-vectored diseases.
    In India, DDT reduced malaria from 75 million cases to fewer than 5 million cases in a decade. Crops and livestock sprayed with DDT sometimes as much as doubled their yields.
    With the publication of the American marine biologist Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962, suspicion grew that DDT, by entering the food chain and eventually concentrating in higher animals, caused reproductive dysfunctions, such as thin eggshells in some birds.
    Some insect pests also gradually developed DDT-resistant strains whose populations grew unchecked while their natural predators, such as wasps, were being eradicated by spraying. In 1973 DDT was banned in the U.S. except for use in extreme health emergencies. Many other nations have also banned it or placed it under strict control.
    Should it now be used? Has its dangerous effect disappeared, or at least diminished? If the scientists who found it harmful years ago were right, then those reports their findings now that it is safe are wrong, and vice versa.
    It caused an alarm when it was known that some of the long-lasting pesticides such as DDT were finding their way into humans. Newsweek of January 26, 1970, stated: "American women carry in their breasts milk that has anywhere from three to ten times more of the pesticide DDT than the Federal government allows in dairy milk meant for human consumption."
    Thus, even government officials and scientists were worried. Dr. Charles F. Wurster, biologist at the State University of New York, quoted by the magazine, said: "The danger is no longer debatable; it's established, scientific fact." Another scientist who examined the evidence remarked: "I'm scared."
    In 1974, Dr Lorenzo Tomatis of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France stated: "There is no animal, no water, no soil on this earth which at present is not contaminated with DDT." In some cases DDT contamination had built up in animals and birds to the point of killing them. Were his findings wrong? If yes, then Dr Gabriel Bimenya and his colleagues are right.
    In 1971, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Robert H. Finch of the United States was worried that If the pesticide DDT were outlawed tomorrow, "…it would take 10 years or longer" to cleanse the nation of effects already caused by the insect killer."
    Early in 1960s, DDT and other pesticides were at first heralded as ‘saviors,' freeing man from dreaded diseases such as malaria and yellow fever. These pesticides also initially tended to increase crop yields by destroying insects. But in 1970s many governments decided to phase out the use of some of these chemicals. Why?
    Because it has been found that they are destroying much animal life, some species being pushed toward extinction. Contamination from DDT has spread earth wide. Traces have been found even in Antarctic animals. Indeed, it has been said that there is no water or land, or life of any kind that has not been affected by DDT. This includes man. And in experiments, heavy doses of pesticides caused serious damage to animals.
    These bad effects of what was thought to be for man's benefit have alarmed authorities. What then can be said of scientific inventions that are deliberately designed to exterminate human life?
    Chemicals for warfare have been developed that are so lethal that only a tiny droplet on the skin will cause death. And some of the bacteria that science has cultivated can annihilate entire populations.
    Medical World News of February 27, 1970, reported on an experiment where twenty-five fertilized eggs were injected with small amounts of a chemical defoliant widely used in the United States (and in Vietnam). Only fifteen chicks survived. Eleven of the fifteen were crippled and had other defects. In the unhatched chicks serious disorders and deformities were found.
    What makes the problem grave is that DDT, and some other pesticides, are not soluble in water. So they accumulate in the organisms that are exposed to them. In time the animal may contain far more pesticide residues in its system than are in the environment. Indeed, it is said that some animals may contain more than a million times as much as their environment!
    Pesticides have disturbed what is called "the balance of nature." An example of this was reported by Dr. Lamont C. Cole of Cornell University, as noted by U.S. News & World Report of November 24, 1969:
    "The World Health Organization sent DDT to Borneo to kill mosquitoes. It worked fine. But it didn't kill roaches, which accumulated DDT in their bodies. Lizards, which lived in the thatched huts, ate the roaches.
    "The DDT slowed the lizards. Cats then easily caught the lizards. But the cats died …With the cats gone, rats came, carrying a threat of plague. And, with the lizards gone, caterpillars multiplied in the huts, where they fed on the roof thatching. Then the roofs started caving in."
    What is ironic is that while pesticides have killed insects, these same types of insects have produced strains that are resistant to those pesticides. Thus, more powerful poisons are needed to kill them. But it is said that there is no pesticide that insects cannot eventually handle.
    The Makerere scientists do not deny the danger the DDT poses, but the danger, they say, is only at "low levels." Whether they are right or wrong is not the point I am trying to make. But how and why these scientists contradicts themselves leaves the world intricately puzzled. Which scientists should we trust or not to trust?
    "DDT, a pesticide which has been banned in Europe and the US for nearly 30 years, is likely to escape worldwide prohibition because of its effectiveness in eliminating the mosquitoes responsible for one of the world's biggest killers-malaria," reported the magazine BBC Wildlife recently.
    "Though DDT is a highly toxic compound proven to have a negative impact on wildlife, health campaigners say it is still one of the most important weapons against malaria, a disease which kills more than 2.7 million people a year and leaves up to 500 million chronically ill."
    While supporting a ban on DDT for agricultural purposes, the World Health Organization argues that it should be used for malaria control until a safe and effective alternative can be developed.
     
Loading...