WI early use of DDT

I was doing some reading and stumbled over the fact that DDT was already discovered in 1874 but its insecticidal properties were only discovered in 1939.

What would happen as by some coincidence this property is discovered early, lets say 1900.

apart from an increase in crop productivity and reduction of certain diseases (like typhus) i could also see lots of bad things happening like good species getting killed off, and poisoning of humans.

And how long would it take to recognise the bad effects?

your thoughts on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
 

Thande

Donor
It would have a massive, incalculable effect on African colonial policies--assuming it could be produced in sufficient quantities of course. Malaria could be eradicated by the 1920s.
 
I see no real reasons we would notice the properties a whole lot later than OTL, though I suspect the conditions for the first half or so of the century are such that we wouldn't really consider DOING anything serious about it until the 50s at the earliest. The two things that DO pop into my mind though are that between the world wars and a slower response the impact would probably be bigger, and depending on just how early the impacts were observed (and they were at least suspected long before Silent Spring OTL) its not inconceivable that Hitler would have banned DDT in Germany.

In broader terms the idea make me think WI Agent Orange in WWII? Not nearly as many opportunities for it's use as in Vietnam (and Indochina seems like where it would probably be seen if it was used early), but the early use of DDT would seem to imply a chemical industry being one way or another more advanced or more aggressive than OTL, which also opens up some ugly possibilities for what we might see used in WWI.
 

Thande

Donor
In broader terms the idea make me think WI Agent Orange in WWII? Not nearly as many opportunities for it's use as in Vietnam (and Indochina seems like where it would probably be seen if it was used early), but the early use of DDT would seem to imply a chemical industry being one way or another more advanced or more aggressive than OTL, which also opens up some ugly possibilities for what we might see used in WWI.

Agent Orange or other defoliants/herbicides would also make for interesting possibilities if they were available as early as the 19th century, too--you could see more concerted deforestation in South America and colonial Africa to clear room for farmland.
 
I see no real reasons we would notice the properties a whole lot later than OTL, though I suspect the conditions for the first half or so of the century are such that we wouldn't really consider DOING anything serious about it until the 50s at the earliest. The two things that DO pop into my mind though are that between the world wars and a slower response the impact would probably be bigger, and depending on just how early the impacts were observed (and they were at least suspected long before Silent Spring OTL) its not inconceivable that Hitler would have banned DDT in Germany.

In broader terms the idea make me think WI Agent Orange in WWII? Not nearly as many opportunities for it's use as in Vietnam (and Indochina seems like where it would probably be seen if it was used early), but the early use of DDT would seem to imply a chemical industry being one way or another more advanced or more aggressive than OTL, which also opens up some ugly possibilities for what we might see used in WWI.


The chemical industry was already pretty aggressive at that time, the only difference was it mostly aimed at the production of dyes, but i agree it would make them look in other directions.
New kinds of chemicals are totally possible and certain kinds of chemical/pharmaceutical research might appear early.

And indeed nerve gases may be discovered early
 
I was doing some reading and stumbled over the fact that DDT was already discovered in 1874 but its insecticidal properties were only discovered in 1939.

What would happen as by some coincidence this property is discovered early, lets say 1900.

apart from an increase in crop productivity and reduction of certain diseases (like typhus) i could also see lots of bad things happening like good species getting killed off, and poisoning of humans.

And how long would it take to recognise the bad effects?

your thoughts on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT


It would have wiped out malaria, probably. In the 3rd world at least its benefits far outweigh its side effects. It is far better to die of cancer in 40 years then die of malaria tomorrow and the chances of dying of cancer from DDT is far smaller than dying of malaria. Personally I am for spraying DDT in the Third World to wipe out Malaria and other tropical diseases.
 

Thande

Donor
It would have wiped out malaria, probably. In the 3rd world at least its benefits far outweigh its side effects. It is far better to die of cancer in 40 years then die of malaria tomorrow and the chances of dying of cancer from DDT is far smaller than dying of malaria. Personally I am for spraying DDT in the Third World to wipe out Malaria and other tropical diseases.
Indeed, while the disadvantages of DDT in the west outweigh the advantages, the case has been made that Rachel Carson has the blood of millions of Africans on her hands. But let's try to avoid politics here, this is an interesting thread and I don't want to see it moved to Pol Chat.
 
Top