Click Image to Enlarge
-
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
-
Meta
I suppose it doesn’t particularly bother you that before the EPA banned the use of DDT in the U.S. in 1973 the population of bald eagles had plummeted to near extinction. Or that other populations of raptors (e.g., golden eagles, ospreys, and peregrine falcons) had declined precipitously. Or that DDT has also been shown to be highly toxic to aquatic life, including fish. So what have been the disastrous consequences of the ban for American citizens? According to the Journal of Forensic Sciences, there were 118 U.S. deaths attributes to the malaria between 1979 and 1998 and the vast majority of these were “imported” cases where U.S. travelers contracted the disease abroad. As of 2006, DDT CONTINUES TO BE USED in other countries where mosquito-borne malaria and typhus are serious problems. In September 2006, the World Health Organization announced that DDT will be used as one of three main tools against malaria and hence recommended indoor residual spraying in epidemic areas as well as in places with constant and high malarial transmission. So what was your point? Are there no sacrifices that you consider acceptable to prevent humans from continuing our relentless assault on the other occupants of this planet?
"Are there no sacrifices that you consider acceptable to prevent humans from continuing our relentless assault on the other occupants of this planet?
"
So, these "sacrifices" that you seem to find acceptable are human lives?
Don't they have some kind of a shot you can take that makes you immune to malaria? That seems like a better way to go than trying to iradicate the world's mosquito population with DDT.
Maybe stem cells can help.
Hey fellas,
First I will respond to Larry. Good questions. A shot is not necessary. If you are going to a mosquito infested area (e.g. the Amazon Basin), you take one pill before you leave and one when you return. The result is no malaria. It's very easy (I've done it). It is somewhat expensive but better than coming down with malaria…which a friend of mine did when we were in Honduras a couple of years back. They treated him with quinine which is readly available. He had a few days which were definitely a bummer but he got over it. The point being that malaria is treatable. One more thing- I don't believe that stem cells are relevant with respect to this particular malady but it's really not my field.
Now for you Mick. You totally missed the point of my comment and I'm not going to explain it to you. Read it again and try real hard to figure it out. I'm not going to be drawn into a ridiculous tit-for-tat with someone who couldn't even grasp the initial issue. C-ya.
As far as I can tell, your post was as pointless as you claim Bok's cartoon to be.
Lets parse your post and see what kind of logical conclusions can be drawn from it.
1. You give stats of malaria cases and the subsequent ban of DDT in the U.S. The relevance this has to tropical climate, third-world nations is non-existent.
2. You claim DDT is still used and the WHO claims it will continue to be used.
3. You lament the fact that people wont make sacrifices to save the fishies.
Now, if you were steering your argument towards some kind of point, I think you failed to arrive. Disregarding point 1 as irrelevent and continuing to 2 and 3, there should be some logical connection between the two remaining points, which boil down to:
1. People are using DDT to stop malaria
2. People should make sacrifices
My only question to you is what are those sacrifices that should be made? The next most logical step is to suggest that DDT stop being used (which in effect = human lives lost). If there are alternatives, Im open to hearing them.
Now, if I failed to grasp the gist of your post, its not through any failure in my logical reasoning as I've just illustrated. The only remaining conclusion is you must have ideas other than what you wrote. What are they?
Bok, the World Health Organization and now Mick have all tried to establish a cause and effect link between the use of DDT and the eradication of malaria (DDT stop being used=human lives cost). On the other hand, I'm Batman points out that it's not used in the U.S., where malaria is rare, while it is used in "third-world nations," where the disease is still prevelant. His point seems very clear and logical.
Of course there are other factors involved, but as far as other ideas, Batman has shown that modern medicine can both treat and prevent malaria through the use of pills and quinine, another clear and logical point. While widespread spraying of any poison defies common sense, I'd add that I've got mosquito spraying trucks running through my neighborhood from time to time, and very few mosquitos. I doubt that they're dispensing DDT.
Chip, regarding your DDT cartoon — while it is true that DDT has been banned in the U.S. due to environmental issues it is still in use in much of the world. Why these third world countries can't get malaria under control is still a question since they do have DDT to use.
"Bok, the World Health Organization and now Mick have all tried to establish a cause and effect link between the use of DDT and the eradication of malaria (DDT stop being used=human lives cost"
This link has been established for decades. This is a fact, not a debatable point.
"On the other hand, I’m Batman points out that it’s not used in the U.S., where malaria is rare, while it is used in “third-world nations,” where the disease is still prevelant. His point seems very clear and logical."
Logical how? He's basically saying "Look, the country that doesnt need DDT is not using it, and there are no ill effects". Its like saying "Look, that guy who doesnt have diabetes is not taking insulin, and hes fine". While the statement is true, it makes no argumentative sense whatsoever.
"Of course there are other factors involved, but as far as other ideas, Batman has shown that modern medicine can both treat and prevent malaria through the use of pills and quinine, another clear and logical point"
Now we get to the crux of the matter. Those other factors arent minor inconveniences, they're huge obstacles. First of all, I dont know what pills Batman claims he took, but there is NO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE malaria vaccine. It does not exist, and wont for quite a few years more.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3742876.stm
Second, quinine only works if you can get it fast enough. Thats fine if you're in a city where clinics are readily available and you can get to one quickly. What about in remote regions where they arent (which is where malaria is most prevalent)?
Now, one more time, what are those sacrifices that should be made?
First, any point can be argued. To say a notion is a fact and not debatable is just lazy.
And what does "commercially available" mean? Can't we make the pills commercially available? And do they have to be commercially available? Can't they just be "available?" And if we can deliver DDT to these remote regions, can't we deliver the pills and quinine there too?
And what are they spraying in my neighborhood? Will that poison not work in other parts of the world?
"First, any point can be argued. To say a notion is a fact and not debatable is just lazy. "
I dont even know what type of thinking is required to make such an absurd statement. If this is true then I challenge you to refute the following:
1. Water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen
2. Humans are mammals
3. Don Plusquelic is the current mayor of Akron
4. 2+3 = 5
Facts come not from laziness but from the availability of no other possibilities.
"And what does “commercially available” mean? "
This means that the drug has been thoroughly tested over years and proven to work without serious side effects. This is something that can only be assured over the course of time, theres no shortcut. The drug needs to be able to be manufactured in sufficient quantities to supply the demand. It has to be a durable good capable of surviving delivery and storage to the point of vaccination. The logistics have to exist to allow for mass innoculation. The administration of the drug has to allow for a normal lifestyle in the region (i.e. 15 injections a day isnt going to be a possibility). You also have to factor in whether or not it will be culturally acceptable to the people there (in Africa the spread of AIDS is rampant due, in no small part, to the refusal of men to wear condoms).
"Can’t they just be “available?”
No. See the above paragraph.
"And if we can deliver DDT to these remote regions, can’t we deliver the pills and quinine there too?"
Quinine is a stop-gap measure. A Band-Aid if you will. Its not a prophylactic and will not stop the outbreak of the disease. If it did, we wouldnt be having this discussion.
"And what are they spraying in my neighborhood? Will that poison not work in other parts of the world?"
I dont know. You should ask the truck driver next time he passes by.
1. Water is composed of two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. As found in nature, there are usually impurities involved as well.
2. To classify an entity that's composed of a soul, mind and body by its reproductive characteristics is sinful.
3. I am the mayor of Akron.
4. 2 plus 3 equals 8.
See Mick. It's easy.
Ahh, yes. Its all very clear now.
Mick- I was going to stay out of this since arguing with people like you is like talking to a tombstone. But since you have now called me a liar (“First of all, I don’t know what pills Batman claims he took, but there is NO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE malaria vaccine. It does not exist, and won’t for quite a few years more”), I am compelled to respond. The pills came from a PHARMACY! Is that commercial enough for you? I went there after receiving a prescription from a DOCTOR. He was real Shaman he was; also vaccinated me for yellow fever, typhoid fever, Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B. Secondly, quinine is distributed all over the world in places where malarial transmission is a problem. My friend obtained his in a tiny clinic on one of the Bay Islands of Honduras. It was hardly a big city.
Amazingly, despite all of your parsing and pseudo-scientific blather you still show no signs of grasping my original post which was really quite simple. The cartoon (and caption) of the eagle was correct. The bald eagle is indeed poised to be removed from the endangered species list and there is broad scientific agreement that the primary reason for the species’ recovery was the banning of DDT in the United States. The cartoon to the right is INCORRECT. The reason that there are still millions of malaria victims, primarily in countries in sub-Sahara Africa, has nothing to do with the U.S. ban on the application of DDT. Since it is not banned elsewhere, one would logically conclude that these countries lack the necessary infrastructure to implement an efficient mosquito eradication program. In my comment I was merely taking exception to Bok’s implication that a successful environmental measure taken by our government was somehow responsible for malaria fatalities worldwide. The statement about the sacrifices which I closed with was a dig at Chip which you would have understood if you had followed this blog for a while. There is some history between us on environmental subjects. But since you seem obsessed with the idea that I was suggesting that humans must be sacrificed to save critters let me clarify. The sacrifices I refer to concern those that might involve some modification of our lifestyle (Gasp!). I happen to be one of those environmental whackos that think a little inconvenience might be appropriate and necessary to preserve the biodiversity on this planet. You know, an insurrectionist that disagrees with the “when in doubt, wipe it out” approach that humans have taken towards other life forms pretty much since the beginning of recorded history.
"The pills came from a PHARMACY! Is that commercial enough for you? I went there after receiving a prescription from a DOCTOR."
What were the those pills. Do you know? I can tell you what they weren't and thats a malaria vaccine.
Regarding the quinine, read my previous post. Its a Band-Aid, not a prophylactic. It will not stop the spread of the disease. And however many pharmacies there are in Honduras, thats not case everywhere. Whats needed is a vaccine, period. And it doesnt yet exist.
"In my comment I was merely taking exception to Bok’s implication that a successful environmental measure taken by our government was somehow responsible for malaria fatalities worldwide."
I think you missed the point of Bok's cartoon entirely. I agree with you that to claim that banning DDT in the US somehow caused malaria deaths in Africa is completely absurd. So absurd in fact, that that paricular interpretation never even crossed my mind. Bok IS criticizing those environmentalists who are calling for a ban in those countries that do need it most.
"The sacrifices I refer to concern those that might involve some modification of our lifestyle (Gasp!). "
Thats a nice sentiment, but how is changing OUR lifestyles going stop the spread of malaria elsewhere?
How can malaria be prevented?
No vaccine against malaria is available. Travelers can protect themselves by using anti-mosquito measures and by taking drugs to prevent malaria.
1. Avoid mosquito bites — Avoiding the bites of Anopheles mosquitoes is the best way to prevent infection. Because Anopheles mosquitoes feed at night, malaria transmission happens mainly between dusk and dawn. Travelers should take steps to reduce contact with mosquitoes both when outdoors and inside, especially during these hours.
When outside: Wear long-sleeved clothing and long pants. For extra protection, treat clothing with the insecticide permethrin.
Use insect repellent on exposed skin. The most effective repellents contain 20% to 35% DEET (N,N-diethylmethyltoluamide). Follow application instructions carefully when using these products.
When inside: Stay in well-screened areas as much as possible during the evening.
Spray living and sleeping areas with insecticide.
Use a bednet when sleeping in a room that is not screened or air conditioned. For extra protection, treat the bednet with the insecticide permethrin.
2. Take anti-malaria drugs — When traveling to an area known to have malaria, discuss your travel plans with a doctor well before departure. Medicines to prevent malaria are usually prescribed for persons traveling to areas where malaria is common. Travelers from different countries might receive different recommendations because of differences in the availability of medicines. Travelers visiting only cities or rural areas where there is no risk of malaria might not need preventive drugs. An exact itinerary is needed to decide on the right degree of protection.
To be sure that your anti-malaria drug helps protect you against malaria, you must follow the recommended doses and schedules exactly:
Take pills on the same day each week, or, for pills to be taken daily, at the same time each day.
Take pills after meals.
Take the recommended doses 1 to 2 weeks before travel, throughout the trip, and for 4 weeks after leaving the area with malaria.
Do not stop taking the pills after arriving home. Complete the full dosage.
Travelers should understand that they can get malaria even if they use anti-malaria drugs. Pregnant women and young children need special instructions because of the potential effects of malaria illness and the danger in using some drugs for malaria prevention and treatment.
You should work as a technical writer for the FDA, Smitty. I'm impressed.
This is exactly what I expected to find out after reading the title Bald Eagle off Edangered Species List. Thanks for informative article