Ddt- A Problem Essay, Research Paper
DDT: Tough Decision-Making
The controversial use of DDT has been common place in the late 19th to early 20th century. As many pesticides started, their costs were overlooked by the out-weighing benefits. DDT has both advantages and disadvantages that cohere to its history. The advantages being that of controlling malaria and other insect causing diseases. Meanwhile, the disadvantages are that of harming animal populations, specifically the marine community and birds. Not to mention causing cancer in humans.
The history behind DDT is rather prevalent. It was discovered in the late 19th century, but dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane s (DDT) insecticidal property wasn t discovered until 1948. The credit for this discovery was given to Paul Muller when he received a Nobel Prize in medicine for his findings on DDT. As stated earlier, it was used to controlled malaria and other tropical-disease outbreaks all over the world. It was cheap and effective. Little did people know that it was a cancer-causing agent in the making. It worked like a charm for many farmers that used it haphazardly on their crop.
In and around the 1960 s, Health officials started to notice harmful effects directly related to the use of DDT. In some fish, it had the capability of converting a male fish into a female that would later bear viable young. In humans, it hindered the immune system, particularly in babies because of their weak immune systems when born. The way humans got infect was by direct and indirect means. The direct way was the immediate handling of the pesticide. On the other hand, the indirect way could be classed as a type of synergy. This by which the DDT was sprayed over a crop, rain runoff would spill into a body of water containing DDT, within this process a worm ultimately got infected by it, then a fish ate the worm continuing the infection. Soon afterward a human would eat the fish and become infected as well. DDT was finally banned over 30 years ago. Its remnants are still left behind in river and ocean sediments. DDT is still used today in some 23 countries, among them being in the continents of South America, Africa, and Asia.
The decision-making process on whether to use DDT or not has many people scratching their heads. In my opinion, we should ban DDT worldwide for the simple fact that it causes cancer. Cancer, being one of the handfuls of diseases that we don t have a cure for, shouldn t be disregarded as a potential result of DDT use. Why should we risk increasing our chances of getting cancer when we can prevent that from happening? If in fact DDT isn t banned, there should be some criteria that decide whether or not a country should use DDT. Here are some of those factors that should be considered:
Probably the most important factor that should be taken into account is the notion of population. If a large population resides in an area that s being considered for spraying, that spraying should not be performed. Putting people in immediate danger is the worst case scenario. Not only would people be effected by the spraying directly, but also indirectly by the consumption of DDT infected food. Wherever there s a large population, there are children. Children must be avoided at all cost because of their relatively weak immune systems. Not only that, but also they can become sterile as a result of DDT exposure. Children are the world s future.
Another determinant that must be thought over is the relative abundance of species in the area of spraying, whether it be plants or animals, it doesn t matter. The fact that South America is spraying DDT is absurd. The nature behind the Amazon rain forest in Brazil is so important and crucial that even the slightest temperature change can cause disastrous effects. What do you think DDT would do to such an environment if stability and particularity were key? Destroy it. Disregarding algae, the South American rain forest produces most of the worlds needed oxygen, DDT would only hinder this mass production. If animals are the factor to look after, they would definitely be effect by DDT. You wouldn t want to extinguish some of the most precious and rare beetle collections in places as Madagascar. Or maybe such bird populations as the osprey of Long Island. The osprey is a great example of DDT s harmful effects. Its population was on the verge of extinction because of the heavy spraying of DDT on Long Island years ago.
In relation to these determinates, another one could be the simple thought of whether it s necessary or not. If there are other possibilities out there that are safer than DDT, why not use them? We should apply our knowledge a little better when it comes to human health. We as a country spend millions upon millions of dollars on cancer research every year, why not take that money and stop or cure what s causing the cancer.
The tough decision-making of whether to use DDT or to ban it has rolled heads in the past few years because of the discovery of its deadly nature towards humans. The following dilemma isn t an easy one, as all health problems aren t. The reason is because people are so torn into opposite direction, pro and anti. Also the fact that it s a worldwide problem creates more confusion. Logic is key in such a scenario, something that creates health problems should be avoided at all costs. It s ridiculous that people are blind to this notion and over-see it because of their simple minded reasoning. DDT kills.
Sources
1) The Pros and Cons of Pesticides
http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/epb/factsheets/pesticides/pro_con.html
2) The Case for DDT: Science News Online, July 1, 2000 http://www.sciencenews.org/20000701/bob2.asp
3) The Good News about DDT http://natsci.ucsc.edu/acad/scicom/SciNotes/9601/Sealion/00Intro.html
4) Debating DDT — 11/11/1999 – ENN.com http://www.enn.com/features/1999/11/111199/featureddt_6194.asp