The Pros And Cons Of DDT

Above I have listed the reason DDT should not have been completely banned, as a scientific solution to its environmental impacts, in America and Europe, and why it should be used in Malaria control. Below I will state the arguments against DDT in Malaria control.

First of all, many of the residents do not want DDT sprayed inside their houses. It leaves a stain on the wall. That is if it can be sprayed on the walls. DDT is only works with traditional walls-mud, cement, clay etc. Painted or plastered walls cannot be sprayed, and as some of these countries become richer, more people will paint their walls. DDT can also kill off insects that are helpful (e.g. the wasps that eat caterpillars that can potentially demolish thatched roofs). Also,

With a cheaper insecticide, it takes less money input to grow the crops. DDT was widely used in agriculture, and had a substantial impact on agriculture output. Therefore, it is obvious that the food price will be cheaper than it is now, and food prices impact families and people as humans need food to survive.. After DDT use was stalled, the newer insecticides were developed and the most widely used agriculture insecticide is called Imidacloprid. DDT lasts longer than Imidacloprid, which would also allow farmers to spray it less, hence, it is cheaper. It is difficult to compare food prices from before and after DDT ban, as many other factors influence it, such as better machinery, or oil price rise etc. But, some comparisons can still be made. In New Zealand, DDT was banned in 1989, and that year, the retail price for milk was 1.5 U.S dollars, in today’s price and units. Before DDT was banned, the price, in U.S dollars and today’s unit and price, was .7 in 1959 and 1.03 in 1969 and 1.3 in 1979. Flour was, in U.S dollars and today’s unit and price, 1.8 in 1989, 1.1 in 1959, 1.8 in 1969, and 2 in 1979. By the 1970s, the dangers of DDT were already known by the world and NZ had already halted all agriculture use, it was not legally banned, however (“We're paying more for milk but less for

It is important to evaluate which chemical causes more harm to humans. DDT has long been rumoured to cause cancer, especially breast cancer in females. The scientific evidence for this claim is not succinct, and the method for gathering data is imperfect. Newer, more thorough research indicates that DDT exposure is not a cause for breast cancer. DDT did cause cancer in the mammals experimented on, but there is incompetent proof for whether or not it is the same for humans. However, for 19 years, a faction of workers that worked in a DDT factory, they were studied extensively and all did not develop cancer. DDT does have connections with pancreas caner, and reproductive results. It also is related to neuropsychological dysfunction. But the evidence for this, though respectable, is not enough to make final assessments in the exact role of DDT in these diseases, and whether or not DDT causes cancer (“DDT and human health”). Animal tests have shown that DDT does cause reproductive and liver problems, along with cancer in animals. Rats consumed large amounts of DDT and become sterile, Mice’s embryos have trouble attaching to the uterus and the babies born are more likely to die, not to mention the eggshell thinning of birds. When given near fatal amounts of DDT, animals