Can you help explain the pros and cons of the elimination of DDT at the local level. I also need help explaining it at a national and global level?
The issues surrounding the use of DDT locally and globally are complex and involve a number of regulatory treaties, which are mentioned in the following document (available online at this url):
From http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/59/10/651 - The Stockholm Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants agrees to restrict the use of DDT except in countries that use DDT "for the purpose of disease vector control, and as intermediate in the production of dicofol; countries that have requested to do so are allowed to continue using DDT against malaria, until effective and affordable alternatives are available".
A great summary of the history of DDT use can be found here: http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309036453/html/361.html
Like most of the other banned persistent organic pollutants (see the Stockholm treaty above), DDT was originally used as a pesticide to control disease vectors for typhoid and other insect-borne diseases, and was eventually applied to crops as a general insecticide. Application by aerial spraying has extreme acute toxic effects on wildlife, especially fish and birds (see http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/ddt.htm and http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309036453/html/358.html), and so the elimination of its use at the local level has immediate positive implications. Unfortunately, one of DDT's desirable properties as far as disease control is concerned is its persistence, which means that it is easily spread in the ...
The effects of eliminating DDT are explored.