Saltpetre of course the Chinese are using DDT, they are not as stupid as us. They know the whole denigration of DDT was one of the first misinformation campaigns of our ratbag greens.

It worked a treat, & even though we now know, most of the "evidence" was a compilation of lies, our politicians don't have the guts to bring it back.

Millions have died of malaria because of this green campaign, but that doesn't worry them. People would be well advised to think of this anytime they see a global warming fraud, or any other "green" campaign. They will always be antihuman.

Hopefully with China's growing contact with Africa, DDT may find it's way back into the fight against malaria.

Hassie,

I would be careful what you postulate; many great minds have serious concerns about the use of DDT, and its potential repercussions.

Per: http://www.intechopen.com/books/insecticides-development-of-safer-and-more-effective-technologies/ddt-as-anti-malaria-tool-the-bull-in-the-china-shop-or-the-elephant-in-the-room-

> While exposure in the industrialised world has fallen dramatically, exposure remains high in some developing countries where DDT continues to be used in vector control.<

>DDT is very fat-soluble and could therefore be found in fatty foods such as meat and diary products. Even in countries across North America and Northern Europe, where its use has been banned for over a decade DDT residues are still often found in food. This is because of environmental persistence, illegal use, or importation of contaminated food from regions where DDT is still used.<

>DDT is highly toxic to fish.<

>DDT and its metabolites can lower the reproductive rate of birds by causing eggshell thinning which leads to egg breakage, causing embryo deaths. Sensitivity to DDT varies considerably according to species. Predatory birds and fish-eating birds at the top of the food chain are the most sensitive. The thickness of eggshells in peregrine falcons was found to have decreased dramatically following the pesticide’s introduction (Ratcliffe, 1970), likely due to hormonal effects and changes in calcium metabolism (Peakall, 1969). Colonies of brown pelicans in southern California plummeted from 3000 breeding pairs in 1960 to only 300 pairs and 5 viable chicks in 1969. In the US, the bald eagle nearly became extinct because of environmental exposure to DDT. According to research by the World Wildlife Fund and the US EPA, birds in remote locations can be affected by DDT contamination. Albatross in the Midway islands of the mid-Pacific Ocean show classic signs of exposure to OCs chemicals, including deformed embryos, eggshell thinning and a 3% reduction in nest productivity. Researchers found levels of DDT in adults, chicks and eggs nearly as high as levels found in bald eagles from the North American Great Lakes (PAN, 1996).<

Continued:

>The evidence relating to DDT and carcinogenicity provides uncertain conclusions. It has increased tumour production, mainly in the liver and lungs, in test animals such as rats, mice and hamsters in some studies, but not in others. In rats, liver tumours were induced in three studies at doses of 12.5 mg/kg/day over periods of 78 weeks to life, and thyroid tumours were induced at doses of 85 mg/kg/day over 78 weeks. Tests have shown laboratory mice were more sensitive to DDT. Life time doses of 0.4 mg/kg/day resulted in lung tumours in the second generation and leukaemia in the third generation, and liver tumours were induced at oral doses of 0.26 mg/kg/day in two separate studies over several generations <

>DDT causes adverse reproductive and teratogenic effects in test animals. In one rat study, oral doses of 7.5 mg/kg/day for 36 weeks resulted in sterility. In rabbits, ... decreased foetal weights. In mice, ... decreased embryo implantation and irregularities in the oestrus cycle over 28 weeks <

>The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that “DDT may reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen”.<

>In vitro studies have shown DDT and its metabolites to have human estrogenic activity (Chen et al., 1997) and DDE to act as an androgen antagonist<

>Both animal models and early human studies have suggested a link with exposure to DDT and the most common adverse pregnancy outcome (spontaneous abortion)<

>Animal studies have suggested DDT may cause central nervous system (CNS) toxicity (Eriksson & Talts, 2000). Exposure .. may be associated with a permanent decline in neurobehavioral functioning and an increase in psychiatric symptoms,<

>At least one cross-sectional study has associated DDT and other pesticide exposures with suppression or induction of several immune parameters <

>Since DDT and its metabolites are so persistent in the environment and human tissues, humans are not excluded from this ecological trends raising questions about the possible impact of widespread pesticide exposure on human communities.<

So, if you're so confident, Hassie, why don't you write a PHD thesis documenting your findings.

Now come on Salty, that was a cut & paste, & about half of it is proven garbage. Just how old was that paper?

Those great minds are like the ones in the US EPA for the end is all, & justifies any lie.

Just like the IPCC & our global warming garbage.

Have you ever seen a toddler with malaria?

Hassie, I'm just airing a note of caution.
In my view there is far too much reliance on, and use of, insecticides (mostly in agriculture), and not all of it is very well controlled.

The residuals are a problem, particularly with the long-lived compounds, like DDT and its derivatives.

Malaria is a very significant problem (still) and the Gates Foundation and others are trying to address this - including with treated mosquito nets, and further research.
Some of this research is addressing the development of resistance in target species - which is a big and growing problem.
Just chucking more DDT at it is not the answer.

The malaria parasite has an extremely complex life-cycle, and I have to hope modern science can and will find a better way to eradicate it than with the use of ever-increasing quantities of DDT (which itself is becoming decreasingly effective due partly to resistance).
Where there is a will, there is a way.

How do we account for bee hive abandonment, childhood asthma, diabetes and cancer - all on the rise - as well as disappearance and genetic deformity of frogs (the 'monitors' of the environment), as well as mass fish deaths and deformity, beaching of whales, crown of thorns starfish infestations, and even perhaps the development of antibiotic resistance (nature, and bacteria and viruses are exceedingly 'adaptable')?

Many of the problems 'we' and nature are encountering can be laid at the door of pollution - from agriculture, chemical production and industry. Herbicides and insecticides are only a part of the problem, but nonetheless a big and growing part.

Just as it was with tobacco, the attribution of blame or causation waits for 'absolute' and un-contestable correlation (as with AGW), by which time very many horses have bolted and very much damage done.
The trick is to avoid irreparable damage - particularly when addressing human persistence and the preservation of nature.

Being so selfish and irresponsible, perhaps humanity deserves the sorry outcome it is working so hard to foist on so many other species.
There is a better way.

Saltpetre, there is a batter way, and that in my view is to use chemicals here in Australia, under our strict control, to produce sufficient foods forourr people so as to avoid the neccecity of importing so much from the likes of China, where health and safety are not such a priority.

You can whistle dicksie as much as you like about the so called benefits of organic, but the reallity is that it can not sustain our population so, so long as we are to rely on foods grown with chemical use, don't you agree we are better off to do such in a controlled environment such as ours.

And, as has been repeated many times, if you don't want chemically assisted foods, then simply grow your own, as you can even grow food in pots if you wish.

Organic farming is an inefficient practice, using more energy per ton than conventional farming so, if you are a climate change believer, and you want to see organic foods only, then you are contributing, or at least supporting a practice that adds to the very concerns you have in the first place. You simply can't have it both ways.