About 3.2 billion people – nearly half of the world's population – are at risk of malaria. In 2015, there were roughly 214 million malaria cases and an estimated 438 000 malaria deaths.
And yet DDT is banned because it might have a link to cancer. Thank you ecological scientist mans.
Half a milliion deaths + 200 million infections + 3billion in danger
white ecologists who went to college and now they have to achieve something
>It drove dozens of species to the brink of extinction.
Let's see here: https://www.google.si/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=how%20many%20species%20die%20each%20day
>Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours.
Now over 150 species die out each day and somehow, biologists (a real science?), were able to calculate how many species died from DDT and concluded a ban was necessary
Eh, wasn't even really biologists friend. Bitch wrote the book Silent Spring which caused a massive panic. Politicians pandered to the freaking out public. Fastforward to millions of preventable malaria deaths.
It's so stupid to allow politics to influence decisions like this.
My dad: The next car I am getting is a XXXXX because it has better fuel efficiency and burns cleaner.
Retard friend: I thought you were a conservative. Why do you care about hippy shit like emissions?
My dad: Because I am an engineer and a leaky sloppy engine is just plain a bad engine. Emissions is a good indicator of how well the engine is designed overall.
DDT does not break down. It kills the bugs you spray it on and the bacteria that try to eat them. The the rain washes it to the uncultivated land and it is taken up by growing plants. So it kills the pollinators that feed off of them. eventually it gets washed into rivers and lakes where it kills the bugs there and so all the fish that eat them and so on.
If you had a gun that killed things it wasn't aimed at would you use it?
Not to mention how banning DDT because it bioaccumulates necessitates the use of massively more dangerous and environmentally damaging insecticides.
>protip, just because something breaks down quickly doesn't make it less harmful than something that breaks down more slowly
It's still widely used to control vectors of typhus and malaria in high risk regions. Prevention of these diseases is more than worth a few thin eggshells and vague unsubstantiated fears that it may have ever contributed to a case of human cancer.
That being said, it's not well-suited for broad agricultural use. We have compounds with better environmental fates that are more effective now. It's like how you notice nobody except organic farmers uses rotenone anymore.
hows it feel knowing you can't make me, /pol/fag
Pro tip: Mosquitoes were becoming immune to DDT anyway.
From the 60's:
>Detailed data presented later in this paper indicate that the Coachella Valley population sampled in 1963 was moderately resistant to DDT
From the 70's
>Various DDT-resistant strains of mosquito, comprising 8 strains of Aedes aegypti from the Neotropics (tropical and South America) and one each of Anopheles gambiae and An.
>It's not 'going away', it's dissolving into the environment.
Ok, putting aside for a moment that you feel entitled to play it fast and loose with terms that have specific meanings like "dissolve," you do realize that organic compounds undergo various reactions under different conditions, right? And that water, light and other environmental factors are often among these conditions and influence certain rates of reaction? And that judging how quickly something breaks down in the environment and into what ultimate products is a pretty big part of why we decide to make one compound a commercial pesticide and scrap another ten?