The US government certainly isn't going to advocate the production, export or use of a pesticide overseas (especially as a part of some US sponsored aid program) that we ourselves see as a danger and have totally banned here in this country. And I think that ban makes sense - DDT is nasty stuff. It's extremely persistent in the environment, for one thing. And the insects it's designed to destroy usually become totally resistant to it over time anyway.
I remember many studies that were done here before it was finally banned here. One of the first and the most obvious ecological consequences of it's use was that the shells of bird's eggs became so thin that they could not protect the growing embryo inside at all, and the bird species that were most effected began dying off (eagles and other water-feeding birds showed the first effects, as I recall, because they got massive doses of DDT from the contaminated fish they subsisted upon, who got massive doses of it from not only their own food chain but also from heavily contaminated agricultural runoff). You didn't dare eat any fish yourself either, and they also began dying off. Algae and plankton in the water absorbed DDT like little sponges, and concentrated it. Everything that ate them did the same, further increasing the concentration with each step up the food chain.
DDT negatively impacted every single species that it came into contact with, and it rapidly came into contact with every single species in the entire ecosystem, from microorganisms all the way up to man.
DDT accumulates and concentrates in the cells and particularly in the fatty tissues of organisms, including man. In man it concentrates in the adrenals, testicles, and thyroid. DDT concentrations are especially high in human milk. Milk production depends heavily on the use of stored body fat, and this is where DDT tends to stay in our bodies. So babies begin to get highly concentrated doses of DDT directly from their mothers right from the day of their birth. It's thought that it may also contribute to the development of breast cancers. DDT also mimics estrogen (the universal female sex hormone of the animal kingdom) in biological organisms. One study showed a direct correlation between rising DDT concentrations in the Everglades (where spraying for mosquitos was frequent for many years) and a dramatic increase in the number of sexual deformities (and infertility) in male reptiles such as frogs, alligators, snakes and such. Fertility studies in Scandinavia (not entirely sure which country), where DDT was widely used to control pests, found that the average male sperm count dropped by almost 50% since DDT started to be used, while there is an increased rate of certain cancers of the reproductive organs compared to former years.
DDT accumulates and concentrates in all organic tissues and organisms, and as you go up the food chain you find that each species in turn accumulates ALL of the previously accumulated DDT present in the organisms below it in the food chain, that it relied upon for food. A study in 1968 showed that Americans were consuming an average of 0.025 milligrams of DDT per day. At concentration above 236 mg DDT per kg of body weight, you'll die. Concentration of 6-10 mg/kg leads to such symptons as headache, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and tremors.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...est/pest1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
The author of the article posted above also asserts:
"The cost of treating malaria and the burden it has placed on any country in Africa outweighed environmental concerns."
I suppose it all depends upon how you chose to look at it. If we support the worldwide use of DDT again, despite what we now know about it's long-term effects, and it consequently kills off all the birds and reptiles and fish in Africa, and then all the other animals that depend upon them for food, can we undo that sort of massive ecological damage? No. When we poison a species to extinction they are gone forever. Permanently.
There is no comparable threat or danger to the human species, on the other hand. No matter how many humans die of malaria, there will always be more than enough of them elsewhere in the world to assure the survival of the species as a whole. We're not apt to become extinct because of malaria, but if we kill off all the microorganisms, bugs and animals in our global ecosystem we're all screwed, and we can't repair or reverse that kind of permanent damage.
The sad truth of the matter is that there is really nothing more "safely expendable" on this entire planet than human lives; if you look at the problem logically and dispassionately and are prepared to accept the harshestest of truths, that much seems abundantly clear.
When Protecting the Environment Kills
