Talk:DDT/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Toxicity in humans misleading?[edit]

The article states: Chemical and pesticide proponents claim there is not a single known human death from DDT poisoning. However, a study (Haun & Cueto, 1967) states, "In a 9-month-old child, poisoned with a 2:1 mixture of camphechlor and DDT, death occurred after convulsions and respiratory failure." Studies into organochlorines indicate "a dose of approximately 10 mg/kg leads to convulsions. An oral median lethal dose (LD50) is higher than 50 mg/kg in animal studies."

Yet both links are dead, and from wikipedia's link on camphechlor, a 2:1 mixture of camphechlor and anything else seems to be deadly. As for the second assertation (since that link is also dead) I can't tell if DDT has the typical toxicity of organochlorines. The EXTOXNET link in the footnotes gives an LD50 of over 100 to 800 in mammals. It also gives a more toxicity example: a child died after consuming 1 ounce of a 5% DDT/kerosene solution.

I think those statements are relics of an earlier debate about DDT's human lethality. A claim was made (without any references, links, or attribution) that DDT has never caused a single human death, ergo the chemical is completely safe around human beings. Personally, without better documentation I'd favor completely removing the statements you find misleading (since the links are dead). Likewise, the paragraph immediately preceding it, claiming "DDT is not particularly toxic to humans," and "no link to cancer has yet been established" needs to be deleted as well. There's no documentation for this entire paragraph. No link is given about the "Numerous studies (that) have been conducted, including one in which humans voluntarily ingested 35 mg of DDT daily for almost two years." Human test subjects have volunteered (apparently multiple times) to ingest DDT daily for two-year stretches? Who conducted these studies? Where were the results published? I'd love to read about these "numerous studies." Dead links are just as useless as these undocumented claims that DDT has "no demonstrated ill effects." Both of these paragraphs border on POV; they both need better references and still probably ought to be moved under the "Arguments for and against DDT" section instead of sitting up at the top.

Remove NPOV tag?[edit]

Anyone want to remove the NPOV tag and see what happens? The article seems fairly stable. It shouldn't sit in the NPOV file unless there are ongoing disputes, right? (Bracing myself for an onslaught here). Feco 23:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)



External links[edit]

Some of these external links are appalling. I'm taking out the ones that have absolutely no scientific merit and are pure polemic—The Malaria Clock of Death is a good example, accusations of a "Green Eco-imperialist legacy of death" and nonexistant causal links are bandied about. Also the Kristof article is no longer freely available, so I linked to a possibly illegal copy. This one is missing it seems.--203.173.6.36 23:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ddt and malaria.[edit]

Well, I hope this satisfies your perceived problem with "obsolete or non-existing references". As for your statement that "environmental groups have tried to ban all use": even if true, that is basically irrelevant, since all use is not banned, no matter whether or not environmental groups have tried anything of the kind. Whelan et al are not stating how many deaths they would estimate might happen if such a ban was in effect, they are stating it as fact. When mosquitoes are susceptible, DDT is indeed effective; I hope you have enough biological understanding to see how the current treaty, banning agricultural use while freely allowing use only for disease prevention, will REDUCE deaths, by reducing the rate at which the mosquito population are selected for resistance. Gzuckier 05:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

PS, this isn't intended to be exclusively POV, although I do obviously have a strong one, so I didn't change/delete the Whelan et al section, and in fact added some references to others who agree with her. I'd have added more of the logic behind their position if I could find any (dig dig) but if anyone else can find said logic or give a reasonable explanation, that would be great. Gzuckier 14:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

A good bit of information from the DDT and Malaria section seems to be sourced to Africa Fighting Malaria, a group that pretends to be fighting against malaria. Actually their main concern is fighting for DDT, as on their website there is a near absence of any mention of other ways to fight malaria (see also sourcewatch.org[1] entry on the group). It does not even appear to have a base in Africa. It is clearly an industry lobby group and it should be made clear if it is to be used as a source at all. Somebody who knows enough about the DDT and malaria issues, please rewrite section accordingly. Jens Nielsen 12:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

POV stuff[edit]

This article seems way skewed towards some kind of insane view that DDT is harmless, and seems to imply that enviromentalists are all out to harm people by banning DDT for no reason. Someone should go through this article and fix it.

Please be more specific about what parts of the existing article are "insane", as it currently stands your claim isn't particularly helpful. Bryan 20:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Basically, almost every interested party agrees that DDT should eventually be banned (see the Stockholm Convention), barring public health issues. This is the current view of most countries, environmental groups, aid agencies, etc. and it makes sense, since regular usage of any Persistent Organic Pollutant is going to accumulate in the environment, and bioorganisms. This article focuses on environmental bashing, often without much evidence. The statement (one among many) Donor organizations have often refused to fund public health DDT programs, perhaps due to pressure from environmentalist groups is POV, how do they know this? What about pressure from chemical companies? If anyone is willing to do a bit of research, and find out why Greenpeace et al opposed the health exemption clause from their point of view that would be a valuable addition. I'll be back when I have time. Tedneeman 23:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I've fixed that statement by removing the speculation on motivation, since the reference linked with it doesn't give any support for it or even a notable source for the speculation. However, your own initial statement here ("Basically, almost every interested party agrees that DDT should eventually be banned (see the Stockholm Convention), barring public health issues.") also isn't supported, Stockholm Convention is a stub with just one external link that doesn't provide any information about who the "interested parties" are. Do you know where a list could be found? Expanding the Stockholm Convention article would be quite useful in this regard. Bryan 00:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
It's been a couple of days, any further specific problems to point out? If nobody presents more after a while, I'm going to remove the NPOV notice. It's not useful if nobody can explain any details of what they think needs to be done. Bryan 15:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Basically, almost every interested party agrees that DDT should eventually be banned (see the Stockholm Convention), barring public health issues. - this statement is a bit of a tautology, since the only use of DDT these days is for public health issues. And there's little agreement on THAT issue. Graft 17:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've done a rough copyedit which I think makes the issues clearer. Actually, that statement isn't a tautology if environmental groups supported a ban regardless. I found something from the WWF's perspective on the matter, but I'll wait for responses to my edit before I add it in. Tedneeman 00:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nice edit. I'm happy with it. Graft 05:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BTW, the WWF is a bit fanatic on the subject - leading the charge to ban - and isn't representative. Graft 05:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dangers of DDT[edit]

I would like to see a heading on the dangers of DDT in terms of how it affected the food chain, that would solve the neutrality issues in my opinion, DDT was useful, but it was also harmful, more harmful than useful and that's why it was banned. iSzabo 00:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea, so long as you keep in mind that "more harmful than useful" is your own POV and is in dispute with many people. Do you plan to work on this, or is this just a general wish for others to follow up on? Bryan 15:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speculation and strawmen[edit]

Ultramarine - if you agree Whelan is a strawman, why is that in there? Can we junk it? I think it's pointless and stupid - we all agree her numbers are totally off-base, her argument is ridonkulous, and her motivations are suspect.

Also, on a COMPLETELY SEPARATE note, total unattributed speculation is NOT appropriate. How do you know this? Given the strength of the environmentalist campaigns against DDT, the WHO and the UNEP could conceivably prematurely ban all use. On what basis is this being included? It just doesn't fly. Graft 17:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll soften my critique, actually, since I don't mean it as strongly as I say: what I want is something better-attributed or more positively stated. E.g., one could point out that DDT -was- nearly banned in 2000 by UNEP in Johannesberg (I'm not sure the WHO has ever been on board that particular train) due to environmentalist pressure. Specific allegations of cost to developing countries would be better demonstrated by example or quoted research. Graft 17:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

reasons[edit]

i'm deleting information that is ridiculous neo-con bs. DDT is FUCKING dangerous. This page is hideously skewed towards the lie that DDT is harmless. Wake up people. Don't let them brainwash us again. --81.135.160.27 19:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're also deleting stuff like "DDT and DDE have no observable effect on non-apex predators, like chickens," which is simply true and confirmed in many studies. I agree this page is littered with neo-con BS, but that doesn't mean you should remove correct information. And based on what you deleted, I really question your ability to tell what is neo-con BS from what is not. Graft 21:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
You fix it then. --81.135.160.27 21:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Errrr, so is malaria.

Limerick[edit]

R3m0t, why did you remove the limerick? I think it adds a touch of lightness to an otherwise unpleasant topic. I came here today to copy the limerick for my colleagues, and found it's just been removed. Why? --Eirinn 01:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons[edit]

I'm tempted to remove the reference to this "journal" as it doesn't appear to be a "normal" scientific journal (at best having only a single study per issue). It's mostly opinion pieces, complaints about the MMR vaccine and the Canadian healthcare system, and reviews of books that are usually consigned to the "right-wing nutjob" bin. Furthermore, the "study" cited, while ostensibly an "analysis", appears an intemperately written (suspiciously so), partisan piece rather than a scientific study. Have a look at their website [2]. Anyway, will delete if no-one objects. --Plumbago 17:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. A PDF of the "study" in question can be downloaded here [3].

NCBI doesn't index it... I'd agree with you on those grounds. Graft 20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Done. Removed. Having now looked more at the Journal, it perhaps merits an entry in Wikipedia. More politics dressed up as science. A rather disturbing trend these days, especially in the US. --Plumbago 09:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Object. Legitimate organization. State objections to the paper in the article. Why delete this when this article now has many unreferenced claims by DDT opponents? Ultramarine 15:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. But I think it's debatable that the JAPS is a scientific journal. I've gone through all of its volumes and it's really an opinion magazine that occasionally publishes a little study (about one per issue). That would be alright it itself, but its opinion pieces are quite often ridiculous, especially on subjects such as MMR. In these areas it's deviating so far from the scientific consensus that one could quite rightly question the veracity of the rest of its pieces. That it's often cited by strongly political organisations or individuals as "evidence" for this or that hobbyhorse makes me (at least) very suspicious of it. I'd be much happier if less rabid sources could be provided (e.g. from the scientific mainstream; there are hundreds of more appropriate journals). Cheers, --Plumbago 09:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
hat is your opinion. Give links supporting your view otherwise it is original reserach. Note that the article cites extensivly from the literature. Attack the arguments, not the persons. Ultramarine 10:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Technically, I was having a go at the journal itself, it's clearly a politically motivated talking shop that at times publishes fringe science. But I take your point. I'll see what I can dig up. Incidentally, just because a publication cites the literature, that doesn't necessarily mean that it has either cited it accurately or in good faith. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The article is misleading; JAPS is neither a scientific journal, nor is Edwards' 2004 article a "study". It's an opinion piece written for an advocacy magazine. It's no more a "study" than a Sy Hersh article in the New Yorker is. Graft 19:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. But with many references. I see no problem with quoting the statement which is true. For example, the claimed relation to cancer was false. "Public pressure was generated by one popular book and sustained by faulty or fraudulent research. Widely believed claims of carcinogenicity, toxicity to birds, anti-androgenic properties, and prolonged environmental persistence are false or grossly exaggerated." Ultramarine 19:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. On closer thoughs, probably the same author to this article and the LaRouche. Seems best to remove it.Ultramarine 19:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Schultz telegram[edit]

'In 1986 Secretary of State George Schultz telegraphed orders to all embassies stating that "The U. S. cannot, repeat cannot, participate in programs using any of the following: (1) lindane, (2) BHC, (3) DDT, or (4) dieldrin." [10] (link to AFM)'

I haven't been able to find any evidence for this claim other than in advocacy sites. Can anyone locate it.

Also, this is one of several cites to "Africans Fighting Malaria" that fails to note that this is a DDT advocacy group associated with the American Enterprise Institute. JQ

I've now deleted unsupported statements from AFM and Roger Bate presented as fact. The relevant para now refers to the AFM claim as follows

It has been claimed that international donor organizations, including USAID, have refused to fund public health DDT programs[8]

JQ 00:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are delete these and keep totally unsupported statements by opponents? Ultramarine 15:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Unsupported claims of fact should be deleted, or properly supported, as per [4]. Statements of opinion should be identified as such. "Selective deletion" is not a ground for restoration.
Simply false, the paragraphs have extensive references. Looking at the article for example shows that reference to George Schultz is Edwards JG. Mosquitoes, DDT, and human health. 21th Century Science and Technology 2002;15(3):16-32. Not AFM.
Ultramarine, this isn't a source but a restatement of a claim by an advocacy group.
Source please. Note that my source is not AFM, they only have a link to paper not published by them. Even if you show that this paper is published by an advocacy group, that is no reason for deleting.Ultramarine 21:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding AFM, not evidence of any misconduct has been shown. Nor that is it associated with any DDT industry.Ultramarine 20:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
AFM is an advocacy group. Claims made by AFM should be labelled that way, just like claims made by Greenpeace.
AFM is only one of 4 sources I gave. No reason for deleting the other statements, and no reason for deleting the AFM statement, add the claim regarding advocacy group if you think it is necessary.Ultramarine 21:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to ask for advice on the best way to treat claims of this kind. In general, I think they should be of the form [Africans Fighting Malaria|AFM] asserts ... Similarly for Edwards and the advocacy magazines in which he writes. But I don't think the claim about the Schultz telegram can be included at all without a newspaper report (not an Op-Ed piece) or official record. As far as I can see, it's a factoid that has been circulating round the Internet for ages with no attempt at verification, and is directly contradicted by offical USAID policy.
Regarding Edwards, you guessing and giving unsourced claims. I have given a source, there is no valid reason for excluding. If you dispute the quality of the source, give a link, not your own opinion.Ultramarine 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources It's clear that none of the sources you are citing are reliable. They are all advocacy groups repeating the same claims from each other, so multiplicity is no help to you. If Schultz sent the telegram as claimed, and it became public, this fact was presumably reported in a newspaper at the time. Find the report and cite it. Or if you prefer write "Numerous writers, including Edwards and AFM have claimed that George Schultz ... However this claim has not been independently confirmed" then proceed to the correct, and verifiable. statement of USAID policy.
I have given the source, you none. Give verifiable views and facts, not your own opinions. Ultramarine 10:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Um. "21st Century Science and Technology" appears to be the output of the LaRouche movement. Do you really want to tie yourself to that particular train-wreck, or have you got a better source? Graft 17:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If you show that this is true, I will not object to removing it.Ultramarine 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
See for yourself. Graft 18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Are they, like, for real, or is the website an elaborate hoax? It scores very high on my (personal) nutjobometer. --Plumbago 18:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

DDT, the Russian band[edit]

DDT is also a russian well known rock band with Yuri Shevchuk as its leader

See DDT. --Plumbago 12:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Crap organization[edit]

Hi people,

It's all well and good to argue about substance, but the STYLE of the page has taken a real downturn. Why is the lede now two pages long and covering all sorts of relatively insignificant details? This is really ugly. Does anyone have a good reason for this? Specifically, Ultramarine, why did you revert to this hideous form? Graft 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm partially responsible for this. After Ultramarine's recent reverting spree the article lost its chemical description infobox. I replaced it by cutting and pasting, but I should probably have reverted to get the old structure back and then added in Ultramarine's changes (not that I agree with them). My apologies. --Plumbago 17:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the old form, I hope without disturbing any new changes. Graft 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Toxicity[edit]

Re: JQ's requested cite, I found this Lancet review, from which I quote the relevant passage:

Toxic effects of DDT
Toxic effects of DDT and its analogues have been extensively studied in laboratory animals. Acute exposure to a high dose of DDT can cause death.12 Exposure to DDT or DDE increases liver weight, induces liver cytochrome P450 CYP) 2B and 3A and aromatase,21, 22 and 23 and causes hepatic-cell hypertrophy and necrosis.12 DDT is insecticidal because of its neurological toxic effects. In laboratory animals, DDT causes hyperactivity, tremor, and seizures. DDT is carcinogenic in mice and rats, mainly causing liver tumours,12 although negative results are also seen,24 and the compound is carcinogenic in non-human primates.25 The o,p′-DDT isomer is the most oestrogenic component of the DDT complex (having a relative binding affinity to oestrogen receptors of 2·9×10−3 relative to 17-β oestradiol),26 with p,p′-DDT being much less oestrogenic than its o,p′ isomer. The p,p′-DDE isomer is anti-androgenic by inhibitive binding to androgen receptors (with a relative binding affinity to androgen receptors of 3·1×10−3 relative to dihydrotestosterone).27 and 28 Prenatal exposure to DDT in early pregnancy in rabbits can reduce overall fetal bodyweight and brain and kidney weight in offspring.29 Immunosuppressive effects of DDT have been shown in rats and mice.30 and 31
In people, DDT use is generally safe; large populations have been exposed to the compound for 60 years with little acute toxicity apart from a few reports of poisoning.12 Doses as high as 285 mg/kg taken accidentally did not cause death, but such large doses did lead to prompt vomiting. One dose of 10 mg/kg can result in illness in some people.12 Subclinical and subtle functional changes have not been meticulously sought until the past few decades.

Also on cancer:

Although extensively studied, there is no convincing evidence that DDT or its metabolite DDE increase human cancer risk. Mainly on the basis of animal data, DDT is classified as a possible carcinogen (class 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)35 and as a reasonably anticipated human carcinogen by the US National Toxicology Program.
Breast cancer has been examined most closely for an association with p,p′-DDE. In a study in 1993,37 breast cancer patients had higher serum DDE concentrations (11·8 μg/L) than controls (7·7 μg/L), and results from several subsequent studies supported such an association.38, 39, 40 and 41 However, large epidemiological studies13, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 and subsequent pooled and meta-analyses50, 51 and 52 failed to confirm the association.

That should do. Graft 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


That's excellent. I was mainly referring to the last sentence about DDT in soap. I think that if this ever happened, it must have been so long ago that it's unlikely there were any proper studies of toxicity. JQ 20:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think DDT is actually still used in soap in Ecuador or Peru. Actually I think I remember Slrubenstein mentioning it once. You might ask him... Graft 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

Here is what I read on the article: "...Silent Spring were ultimately scientifically inaccurate." Is there proof of this?

If you mean "the evidence available at the time probably didn't bear them out", then, yes, this is almost certainly true. Graft 07:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Birds egg were correct. DDT->cancers claim on the other hand,

  • In one study, primates were fed 33,000 times more DDT than the estimated exposure of adult humans in 1969. No conclusive link with cancer was detected. Source: Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 1999; 125(3-4):219-25
  • A study of 692 women, half of them control subjects, over a period of twenty years, established no correlation between serum DDE and breast cancer. DDE is a matabolite of DDT, and correlates with DDT exposure. Source: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999 June; 8(6):525-32
  • A study examined 35 workers exposed to 600 times the average DDT exposure levels over a period of 9 to 19 years. No elevated cancer risk was observed. Source: ER Laws, 1967. Archives of Environmental Health 15:766-775
  • In another study, humans voluntarily ingested 35 mg of DDT daily for about two years, and were then tracked for several years afterward. No elevated risk was observed. Source: Hayes, W. 1956. JAMA 162:890-897

These are direct experiment, not annecdotal ones. FWBOarticle

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc[edit]

Firstly, it looks like an original research. Secondly, the logic of applying this type of false logic is incorrect (illogical ;)). Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is applicable if there is only annecdotal evidences. In this instance, the direct link between spraying of DDT and malaria is well established. DDT does kill mosquitos and therefore prevents malaria. If DDT spraying was stopped without being replaced by an effective alternative, then it would have increased malaria, causing death. Another clarification which is lacking in this article is that spraying of DDT in agriculture has likely increased malaria death while spraying of DDT in residential area has likely reduced malaria death. Another misinformation is about DDT spraying and mosquito nets. These two are complementary measure against malaria, therefore both measures should be applied. On the other hand, alternative insectcide are competing measure. So provided that these alternative insectcides are less toxic and more effective, then they should replace DDT. But it is important to ask whether such alternative were available in the past. FWBOarticle

Rearrangement[edit]

I believe, "Properties"->"History"->"Envorinmental impact"->"Impact on Human" is better narrative structure. Plus, given the citation from the Lancet, I believe it is well verified, wikipedia wise, that DDT pose little health risk to human. I also believe Pro/Anti DDT section should be integrated into "DDT and malaria" section. Most of the arguments are duplicate. FWBOarticle

Edwards[edit]

I've restored the description of Edwards as "pro-DDT". This is an undisputed fact, noted by supporters and critics of widespread use of DDT; the claim that his position was proved right is, as the history of this article shows, highly controversial.

Problem with the word "pro" is that it is another weasle word. What aspect of DDT was he pro of? If his view rested on DDT being not carnocigen to human? Then proper edit is "whose critiques draw on the work of entomologist J. Gordon Edwards, a witness at the hearings who stated that there is no evidence to substantiate the claims that DDT pose threat to human health." Clarifying what his position is better NPOV. Adding pro is an attempt to paint him as biased (i.e. his position being incorrect). Similarly, we should avoid describing Carson as anti DDT. Rather we should state what arguments or claims she has made. FWBOarticle

DDT and Malaria Intro[edit]

Funny that you missed this existing edit.

"Furthermore, the application of DDT that proved most troubling to environmentalists (and indeed, health officials) was in agriculture. Even as anti-malaria programs were reducing their usage of DDT, producers of cotton and other cash crops were spraying ever increasing amounts of the pesticide, further limiting DDT's overall effectiveness. As noted above, El Salvador actually saw its cases of malaria increase during years of high DDT usage, directly contradicting the claims of Crichton and others.[1]"

Of course, the context of presentation is in favour of environmentalists. I don't think reduction of use of DDT in malaria is the core of the controversy. I added this edit in the front because it can kill off lot of subsequent strawman argumment on both sides. Obvious example is to imply that, in malaria debate, people making accusation of policy mistake are against restriction of use of DDT in agriculture. FWBOarticle

DDT and Malaria Death Controversy[edit]

I will revamp this section which is rife with duplicated arguments. Firstly, "DDT and malaria" and "Arguments for and against DDT" should be merged because both are play ground of green/antigree POV. Secondly, I will state DDT in agriculture increase mosquitoes resistance to DDT and mention why use of DDT were not restricted in agriculture. Thirdly, I will state that fear of being responsible for causing cancer (not unreasonable worry given agent orange) cause many governments, u.n. and other donor countries to curtail funding for DDT spraying in vector control. (Anyone who say otherwise is not conducting edit in good faith, IMO.) But I will also mention that in many instance, incompetence of domestic health policy are also to be blamed. I will transfer any other other anectodal arguments at the bottom of the section and see what can be done about it. FWBOarticle

I do not consider my subsectioning as desirable final format. Rather, it is intended as a mean to help sorting out the mess by identifying different aspects of this rather complicated issue. (1) Intro (2) Restriction of DDT use (3) "Overall" Effectivness of DDT against malaria (4) Development of resistance (5) Alternative to DDT (6) Arguments by pundit and advocacy groupsar (i.e. partisan edit dump hole). Once duplicate arguments eliminated and subsection being summarised, we may remerge subsection to form coherent single section. I will be back later. ;) FWBOarticle

Malaria Controversy Intro section[edit]

I have deleted

"Furthermore, the application of DDT that proved most troubling to environmentalists (and indeed, health officials) was in agriculture. Even as anti-malaria programs were reducing their usage of DDT, producers of cotton and other cash crops were spraying ever increasing amounts of the pesticide, further limiting DDT's overall effectiveness. As noted above, El Salvador actually saw its cases of malaria increase during years of high DDT usage, directly contradicting the claims of Crichton and others."

Two misrepresentations here. Firstly, Crichton is agaist restriction of use of DDT against malaria. However, the above edit falsely switch his argument that he is against restriction of use of DDT in both agriculture and malarial control and are not aware of ddt resistant development. Secondly, yes, some (or few depending on your POV) environmentalists might have made sensible distinction between use of DDT in agriculture and vector control. But to imply that this was the position of all environment all along is to rewrite the history of environmental movement. In fact, at some point, most curtailment of DDT happened in vector control while usage in agiriculture went unabated in many countries, which the above edit admit happening. Despite the availability of medical research you can pull by a simple google scholar search, I still find number of sites which try to propagate false information that DDT cause cancer to human. FWBOarticle

there is no restriction on use of DDT against malaria or any other disease.Gzuckier 19:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
"restriction" here refere to curtailment of funding which amount to restriction in practice. In abortion debate, if the state stop sponsoring abortion clinic, such policy is also described as "restriction" even though abortion may still stay legal. Feel free to make disambituation. FWBOarticle
there is no restriction in practice on use of DDT against malaria or any other disease. The funding organization says it funds DDT use where appropriate, as detailed in the article. The use of DDT in numerous countries is without dispute, as detailed in the article. The people who carry out the work are not saying it is restricted. The company which manufactures DDT says use for disease fighting is not restricted. The only people saying use is restricted is an anti-environmental pro-industry group whose closest tie to malaria fighting is their name. Their argument boils down to a complaint that DDT is not used where it wouldn't be appropriate. Gzuckier 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If i say, I'm restricting my diet, does it mean I stop eating? There is no ban on the use of DDT while there were definitely curtailment on the use of DDT in vector control. Covertly switching the definition of term is not NPOV. Restriction mean curtailment not ban. Vapour
Are you saying somebody else is restricting your diet, because you're eating less? Who, the environmentalists? If you mean it's not used as much as previously, so what? Is there a ban on buggy whips? The manufacturers don't think there's a ban, the funding people don't think there's a ban, the people using it don't think there's a ban, the only people who think there's a ban are the people who hate environmentalists and have nothing to do with malaria prevention. If you say there's a ban, that's important info to include with your statement. Gzuckier 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It is amusing because English is not my native language while you appear to be a native speaker. "To restrict" mean "to keep or confine within limits". [5] "To ban" mean "to prohibit, especially by official decree". [6] So are you still saying that "there is no restriction on use of DDT against malaria or any other disease" on the ground that there were no ban? Even few sources from the green admit that the funding and the use of DDT has been curtailed. Oh, I'm FWBOarticle. Vapour
You said If i say, I'm restricting my diet, does it mean I stop eating? Are you suggesting that your restricting your diet proves a "ban on food"? If not, then how does your saying that people have restricted spraying of DDT proves a "ban on DDT"? Gzuckier 15:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Read "?" mark at the sentence. If my elementary understaindg of engrish is not too far off, my sentence appear to be indicating that the fact that I'm restricting my diet does "not" amount to me banning myself from eating. Obviously, most people could then understand the analogy that, just becasuse there are no ban on the use of DDT does not amount to "there is no restriction on use of DDT against malaria or any other disease". But you may have missed this quantum leap of logic. Restriction on the use of DDT is attested by various sources and are quoted in the article, some even coming from the green. You appear to be resorting to revisionist version of the history for the sake of whatever ideological bent you are pursuing. There is no way to defend your statement, which I quote again, "there is no restriction on use of DDT against malaria or any other disease". You can keep it up if you wish because I find this quite entertaining diversion. Vapour
Well, if you and I agree there is no ban, then your beef would seem to be with the people who claim there is:
Supporters of DDT state that millions of malaria deaths are due to an international ban: 90,500,000 as of January 2006, according to the ever-increasing "deathclock" at junkscience.com,[40] and hundreds of thousands according to Nicholas Kristof.[41] Popular author Michael Crichton states in his novel State of Fear:
Since the ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler.[42]
Gzuckier 17:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Your characterization of Crichton is incorrect. He has repeatedly attacked the 1972 ban which applied to agricultural use as well as attacking the "ban" on DDT in general terms.
"In fact, at some point, most curtailment of DDT happened in vector control while usage in agiriculture went unabated in many countries, which the above edit admit happening."

This claim should be sourced or removed. My reading is that agricultural use was in fact restricted or prohibited, but that the restrictions were frequently evaded. JQ 21:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess it is o.k. if the same information is spinned in favour of the green. Here is something which is already in the article.
"Furthermore, the application of DDT that proved most troubling to environmentalists (and indeed, health officials) was in agriculture. Even as anti-malaria programs were reducing their usage of DDT, producers of cotton and other cash crops were spraying ever increasing amounts of the pesticide, further limiting DDT's overall effectiveness. As noted above, El Salvador actually saw its cases of malaria increase during years of high DDT usage, directly contradicting the claims of Crichton and others.[1]" FWBOarticle
What part of a citation to Nature is unclear to you? Are you mystified as to why an opinion published in a journal should be included when yours is not, or do you feel that the opinion of the authors of the paper should not be posted since you disagree with it? Gzuckier 18:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that use of DDT has been curtailed is a historical fact thought the cause of it is disputed. You selectively invoked verification criteria when it is plain obvious the the entire discourse of the section is conducted on the basis that curtailment of DDT on vector control took place. Vapour
It's not a "historical fact" just because Michael Crichton read it in some rightwing enviromentalist-bashing blog by some guy who never set foot in Africa or donated a penny towards malaria prevention, that said there's a ban without any evidence other than lies about whether USAID funds it. Gzuckier 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Curtailment of the use of DDT is a historical fact whatever Michael Crichton said. Attempt to use MC as a strawman is a pathetic attempt at historical revisionism. And as I pointed previously, you should check the english dictionary and find out the meaning of the words, restriction, curtailment and ban. And USAID make it clear in their website that they prefer funding DDT alternative. Vapour
Curtailment of the use of DDT is a historical fact whatever Michael Crichton said. The point being that a "ban on DDT" for other than agricultural use is not a historical fact just because you and others say so.Gzuckier 15:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I said "The fact that use of DDT has been curtailed is a historical fact ". Then you said, "It's not a "historical fact" just because Michael Crichton read it in some rightwing enviromentalist-bashing blog ". In which I said "Curtailment of the use of DDT is a historical fact whatever Michael Crichton said.". Now you are saying "The point being that a "ban on DDT" for other than agricultural use is not a historical fact just because you and others say so". Not only you are trying to rewrite the history of use of DDT with your statement "there is no restriction on use of DDT against malaria or any other disease", you appear to be trying to rewrite the history of this debate as well. both ban and Michael Crichton is your introduction. Now your argument make it appear as if I introduced it.
According to a philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University, bullshit is a form of falsehood-telling distinct from lying. "It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose." oh, my reference is not vulgar usage of the term but the logic ascribed to it by Harry Frankfurt. Vapour
Given that you flatly assert that it is "historical fact" and when I provide confirmable evidence that tends to undermine your statement, your response is not actual evidence, but some self-referential bullshit about bullshit.... Gzuckier 17:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Your characterization of Crichton is incorrect. He has repeatedly attacked the 1972 ban which applied to agricultural use as well as attacking the "ban" on DDT in general terms."

Yeah, because malaria is not a problem in U.S. This does not equate MC being ignorant of DDT resistance. Plus, MC is used as a strawman argument. He is one of critics but he does not represent the whole argument of critics. FWBOarticle
Instead of twittering back and forth, can all of you simply provide some fricking evidence of what you mean? What are instances of curtailment of DDT use on vector control that were NOT part of vector control strategies? I.e., that resulted from something that we could reasonably consider external intervention? Simply detailing these will settle the issue. Graft 18:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying. Rather than a handwaving reference to "historical fact" as though we all learned it in second grade. Gzuckier 14:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User Mary Read's edits[edit]

On the whole - nice work. Your copyediting has definitely improved weaker sections of the article. However, in one or two places, you've toned down statements, even ones which are statements of fact. For example, "DDT is considered a persistent ..."; "had a tendency to become". The original statements had nothing wrong with them, and these edits might be misconstrued as attempts to dilute them. Furthermore, there are a few statements I'd definitely question : "Studies have shown there is no link between DDT and cancer in humans" - this is better phrased "Studies to date have not found a link between DDT and cancer in humans", since a study that doesn't find something can't rule it out (and, let's not forget, DDT has been observed to cause cancer in other mammals). Also, "ban has a racist tinge", erm, where did that come from? Might need to clarify this one, it seems a bit POV. Anyway, I don't want to downplay your good work, but just wanted to flag up my concerns. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm easy. If you see anything that doesn't smell right, I'd be happy to change it. As far as the reference to the "racist tinge," it seemed to be the train of thought that was being alluded to, but not directly stated, in the paragraph in question. I'll certainly remove it if it's offensive, however. Mary Read 08:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I think my complaints are minor, but given the politics that often intrude on DDT, I just wanted to flag up the dilution thing. As for the racism, I sort-of see what you mean. It's not offensive (well, to me anyway), but it's not clear that it's a neutral addition. Anyway, I'll try to edit around my concerns, but feel free to haul me up if I reword things badly. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that I particularly like "racist," looking at it again. I've tweaked that paragraph in an attempt to make it more accurate and less POV by suggesting that the ban might be construed as showing a lack of compassion toward the suffering in Third World nations. Mary Read 08:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

I've added text distinguishing between the scientific controversy over the appropriate role of DDT vs alternative pesticides and the popular claims of Crichton, AFM and others. I think this should help to clarify the debate

Yup, I agree. It also draws attention to the origins of the "debate" and to its tactics. It's not dissimilar to other "debates" in areas of environmentalism, public health and science education. Is there an overarching page bringing these sorts of things together? If not, there maybe should be. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Astroturfing.Gzuckier 18:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Laws etal 1967 reference (no. 11) is mischaracterized[edit]

Regarding the following statement: "A study examined 35 workers exposed to 600 times the average DDT exposure levels over a period of 9 to 19 years. No elevated cancer risk was observed." This is referenced to a Laws et al 1967 clinical study. The goal of this study was to estimate the exposure levels of workers in a DDT plant to DDT using blood, fat, and urine samples. The highest exposure of those examined was estimated at roughly 600X than the average American. The authors divided the workers up into groups based on their exposures. Of the 20 men in the high exposure group, the average exposure was estimated at 400X than the average American. They also report the workers had 12 to 32 times the amount of DDT-related material in their fat, 3 to 10 times more DDT-related material in their serum, and 28 to 78 times the amount of DDT-related material in their urine compared to the general population.

More importantly, however, the study was not designed to evaluate cancer risks. The oldest worker was in his 40s. The full extent that the authors assessed cancer risk was to ask each worker if they had ever been diagnosed with cancer. This warranted only a single sentence in the author's study and does not deserve mention in this wikipedia article.

This article is frequently cited in internet sites arguing that DDT is non-carcinogenic, however, given the mischaracterization coupled with the difficulty in obtaining a copy of the original study, I have no doubt few have ever bothered to actually read it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chinquapin (talkcontribs) 18:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Health inconsistencies[edit]

I have just come to this article and read it straight out and thought I would point this out:

  • The article makes contradictory claims, sometimes saying DDT does cause cancer, other times saying that it doesn't. If there is uncertainty, then world like 'might' would make it consistent.
  • The article claims at one point it has lots of damages to fertility and pregnant women and babies, at another point saying it's mostly safe for humans.

--komencanto 12:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


Also first coming to this page, and it does not read like NPOV. Alot more space is given to explaining why the environmentalists are wrong than what they said in the first place. 80.169.138.156 08:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

apologies[edit]

Without realizing this article extends for another twenty feet, I added what seemed to be a much-needed note on the reasons opposition to DDT first emerged, centering on the origins of the EDF campaign. Some of it, such as the role of Carol Yannacone and the link to her husband's article, should be preserved in future edits. But having now seen (although not read) this whole mess, I agree that a fresh start is probably what's needed.

Here's a suggestion: Let's break it up into several articles. ONE would contain all the endless back and forth about environmental effects. Call it DDT: The Environmental Effects Then do: DDT: Direct Effects on Human Health another: DDT: History of its Discovery and Applications (That last one could be the place for chemical diagrams and stuff, since theey relate to its discovery) an alternative would be: DDT: What it is and how it works THEN WE DO THE STORY OF THE VAROUS BANS, where and how the campaigns got started etc. This could be called: DDT: The Opposition

Sound reasonable? It's a big subject, and it doesn't make sense to try to cram it into one manageable piece. Nor does it make sense to let this one keep growing. Again - apologies for what I just did, adding to the mess. I'd correct it myself but I'm new here and would just end up messing up further some other part of this disaster.

This Debate is Full of Junk Science[edit]

100 things you should know about DDT

Use of DDT was:

Also addressed are the issues of declining bird populations and faulty detection methods.

It's not a debate, it's an article. And JunkScience.com is hardly a comprehensive and entirely trustworthy source of unbiased information (just look at the article on Steven Milloy and here). It certainly makes some good points re: DDT, but it's not the last word on the subject (to say the least). By all means edit the article, but please use sources appropriately (i.e. primary sources are best). Cheers, --Plumbago 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the article covers most of these objections well enough; it discusses Ruckelhaus's ban and claims of his not reading the text (despite my qualms about that being taken out of context); it discusses risks to humans and cancer studies; and it points out that egg shell thinning only occurs in some bird species, e.g. not in chickens but in raptors. Graft 18:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's also worth reading Junk science. This is a term invented by tobacco lobbyists, and is not a useful starting point for debate on scientific issues JQ 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is Milloy's site used as a reference in two places? Since when is that guy a reputable scientific authority? Isn't he more of a source for people who argue politics?

Milloy is absolutely not a reputable authority, but he isn't used as one. The references to his site link back to the controversy section. It's appropriate to quote him there, since he's played an active role in the controversy. JQ 10:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd say that due to the controversy, statements in the articles that support Junkscience's claims should reference Junkscience's references, not the JS website itself.--Rotten 15:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, as regards scientific claims, but it's important not to accept Milloy's summaries at face value. Before using one of his references, it's important to go back to the original source and check it. As regards the controversy section, what I said before.JQ 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Sometimes I think Wikipedia scientific articles should allow peer-reviewed journals only.--Rotten 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Balance and NPOV[edit]

I see two main POVs and DDT and malaria:

  1. That DDT is so dangerous that it should not be used, even for indoor spraying of walls.
  2. That DDT is so safe that it should be used for indoor spraying of walls (which will save millions of lives per year).
Neither POV is correct. The position of most experts is that DDT should be and is used under certain circumstances. However, given that the total death toll from malaria is about 2.7 million per year, and that DDT is only a small part of an appropriate response, expanding its role is unlikely to save "millions of lives per year".JQ 22:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see objective information about this dispute. Crichton and others say that DDT was "banned" in some way (or to some extent). I just know read some claim about George Schultz forbidding USAID from having anything to do with malaria eradication programs which used DDT. However, today I also read a claim that "there has been no ban on DDT, it can be used whenever public health is an issue".

So we need both sides on this.

Several months I wrote up some info on DDT ban but I can't find it any more. Has it been deleted, or what? --Uncle Ed 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ronald Bailey wrote:

  • Anti-DDT activists who tried to have the new U.N. treaty on persistent organic pollutants totally ban DDT have stepped back recently from their ideological campaign, conceding that poor countries should be able to use DDT to control malaria-carrying mosquitoes. [7]
To clarify, Bailey in 2002 is writing about the Johannesburg conference in 2000, in the lead-up to which WWF sought a date (2010, IIRC) for a final phase-out of DDT, arguing that Western countries should fund its replacement by safer alternatives. This position was strongly resisted, and eventually abandoned by WWF. So the statement that ""DDT was banned" might more accurately be put as "Some environmental groups have, in the past, proposed an eventual ban, but such proposals have been rejected"JQ 22:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"DDT is one of 12 poisons banned from use by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), although the treaty does allow continued use of DDT for vector control in countries prone to malaria. This exemption has been included because alternative pesticides are frequently too expensive for developing nations suffering high disease rates." Says the US Department of State. 206.124.31.24 09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Then there is a dispute between two groups of "people concerned about malaria" over:

  • to what extent DDT is effective in curbing malaria
  • what effect "attempts to ban DDT" have had on the effectiveness of anti-malaria campaigns

I'm not sure how to identify these two groups in the article. For sake of discussion, I'll call them anti-DDT and pro-DDT. (If we cooperate on this, we can find better names, like "liberal" and "conservative" or Radical environmentalists and "anti-RE's".)

I've read tons of material insisting that DDT was "banned" (to a certain extent); and that this "ban" led to millions of malaria deaths. JQ presents the POV that:

  • DDT is only a small part of an appropriate response; and,
  • expanding its role is unlikely to save "millions of lives per year"

I'd like to see two things:

  1. A statement in the article that there is a dispute (or controversy) over the role of DDT in combating malaria
  2. Summaries of the pro-DDT and anti-DDT positions on this dispute.

Would that suit you, John? --Uncle Ed 14:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you do this, you need to be clear on who's "for"/"against" and why. And don't forget that organisations such as the WHO are quite clear on DDT - it's fine by them to use it to control mosquitos in malaria endemic areas (see the links on the malaria page). But its use is restricted to public health - much of DDT's bad press stems from its (massive) overuse by farming to increase yields by eliminating insects. Amongst other things, this overuse led to the evolution of resistant mosquitos that have rendered DDT impotent in some areas. Certainly, one of the reasons the WHO advocate alternatives to DDT (to be used alongside it or instead of it) is to avoid or counter the evolution of resistance.
As an aside, although malaria kills on the order 1+ million people per year, it's not clear to me that DDT will entirely eliminate this toll (e.g. what fraction of deaths take place in regions where mosquitos are resistant? what fraction are caused by otherwise inadequate medical care, etc.). Are there any published studies estimating potential decreases in mortality if inconvenient restrictions on DDT use were lifted? All of the references I've come across are merely polemical (suggesting I'm looking in the wrong place). Cheers, --Plumbago 17:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
From official as opposed to polemical sources, it's overwhelmingly clear that the main problem is lack of funds rather than restrictions on particular tools like DDT. Coming back to Ed, all these issues are discussed at length in the section on The Malaria Controversy. In particular, claims about millions of deaths are cited, and the different positions are summarised. The main pro DDT group Africa Fighting Malaria is mentioned and linked.
Discussions with those who believe in an evil "ban on DDT" (for fighting disease, it is banned for agriculture) typically have the format:
Noble Defender of the Little Brown People, call him Mikey Crikey: "The ban on DDT has killed more people than Hitler".
Evil Environazi, call him Mr. Bitler: "There is not and never has been a ban on DDT for fighting disease".
Mr. Crikey: "Then why isn't it used everywhere?"
Mr. Bitler: "Because it's not appropriate for use everywhere, often because in many places the previous agricultural use, now banned, left a large reservoir of resistance in the mosquito population which quickly comes to dominate when use is reinstated".
Mr. Crikey: "But lots of places do use DDT and have terrific results! Why doesn't everybody? Because there's a ban, that's why!"
Note that in a normal discussion, at this point by mentioning the many places that DO use DDT, Mr. Crikey would have been judged to have shot his own argument re the existence of a "ban on DDT" full of holes; but this being an argument about "truth" not logic, instead the argument now tapers off into a highly technical discussion of resistance to insecticides and to what degree it is generated by the current, non-agricultural use (i.e. orders of magnitude less than agricultural use), and Mr. Crikey goes home convinced he scored a major victory. Gzuckier 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Extent of ban[edit]

Article says DDT was banned in the U.S. Was it also "banned" overseas? How much of a restriction resulted?

I read somewhere that USAID at one point adamantly refused to fund any program that used DDT to kill mosquitoes - insisting instead that people try to sleep under cumbersome, uncomfortable (and expensive) nets. The source (which I'll try to google up again) said that an application of DDT to interior dwelling walls is effective for six months.

Similar sources (pro-DDT advocates) attribute tremendous increases in malaria deaths to anti-DDT restrictions (not to say "bans"); they blame the US and the UN specifically. Is there any truth to the claim that malaria was almost wiped out in some countries, but that zero population growth advocates wangled the DDT restrictions with the intent of killing Africans and Asians? (That's a rather extreme claim, on the order of accusing Mao Tse-Tung of murdering 60 million Chinese civilians to build Communism.) --Uncle Ed 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed, sources like these are linked in the article. As you imply, their claims are not credible, and I think the article does a good job. On your first question, agricultural use of DDT has rightly been banned globally (at least AFAIK). The US ban did not include "essential public health use", but DDT has been displaced by less persistent, but more expensive, alternatives in developed countries. As regards bednets, most reputable authorities regard them as essential. Bear in mind that the idea of globally eradicating malarial mosquitoes was abandoned by the 1960s, well before the US ban, because of the rise of resistance. House spraying is at best partially effective.JQ 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Bednets expensive? Sources I've seen have them arguably cheaper than spraying, DDT included; both absolutely and in terms of lives saved per $. As for uncomfortable, I haven't seen reference to that before. Gzuckier 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

FA?[edit]

Any opinions on whether this should qualify as an FA? DS 12:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • A much higher proportion of statements need to be referenced to primary literature before it would qualify, IMHO.

Also, a minimum, read and discuss these articles that address the balance between risks and benefits of DDT for malaria control:

    • Curtis, C.F. & J.D. Lines, 2000. Should DDT be banned by international treaty? Parasitology Today 16: 119-121.
    • Turusov V, Rakitsky V, Tomatis L, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT): Ubiquity, persistence, and risks. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES 110 (2): 125-128 FEB 2002
    • Chen A, Rogan WJ Nonmalarial infant deaths and DDT use for malaria control. EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES 9 (8): 960-964 AUG 2003

aong with the Rogan and Chen article already cited. Satyrium 23:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Chapin_and_Wasserstrom was invoked but never defined (see the help page).