Rachel Carson: Nice lady scientist, no mass murderer


Aaron Swartz has the summary.  Start with the introduction here, and see the full text with links here.

He goes easy on the hoaxers, those who cast stones at Ms. Carson, but you still get the idea if you read the article.

This entry was posted on Saturday, July 26th, 2008 at 5:04 pm and is filed under Accuracy, Africa, DDT, Environmental protection, Health care, Hoaxes, Junk science, Malaria, Politics, Rachel Carson, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to Rachel Carson: Nice lady scientist, no mass murderer

  1. adrian's avatar adrian says:
    July 29, 2008 at 4:31 am

    Dear Mr Darrell,
    I have only today found your site and have spent the morning reading comments on the issue of DDT and Rachel Carson. I only regret I did not find this site earlier. With the odd exception, such as the over-heated comment from the Channel Islands above, I have thoroughly enjoyed and and learned from the discourse.
    I will take you to task over one of your assertions though, that the current initiatives against the use of DDT for IRS is being lead by industry ( tobacco, cotton, coffee and cocoa) and not by ‘environmentalists’. You might like to visit: http://allafrica.com/stories/200805051485.html
    You might also wish to do some due diligence on a consortium of NGOs clustered around Physicians for Social Responsibility which has a very aggressive office in Nairobi.
    You might also wish to know that as i write, an injunction remains with the Ugandan High Court, preventing the MOH from continuing IRS with DDT in Uganda. This legal action is lead by British American Tobacco (Uganda) and Dunanvant Cotton Int. Both argue that the prospect of DDT leaching into their products threatens their trade. You have already made your comments regarding ‘organic tobacco’, you may wish to consider a comment regarding organic cotton, I certainly would appreciate your opinion.
    I live and work in northern Uganda, in the arena of Malaria, HIV/AIDS and TB. I have just completed a detailed study on MAT, health facility capabilities and household KAP survey. I therefor have some detailed knowledge of the realities of life with malaria and some deep prejudices too, i suspect!
    I would like to continue this debate with you and your gang, if you are interested.
    Right now I have to rush and rescue my wife from a noisy meeting and buy her lunch
    Regards
    Bob Leitch

    Like

  2. Ed Darrell's avatar Ed Darrell says:
    July 27, 2008 at 7:52 am

    Dear John,

    Sri Lanka’s malaria problems were more due to the pharmaceuticals not working than any DDT shortage. The malaria experts there do not share your view.

    DDT was banned in the U.S. because it destroys ecosystems. In particular, DDT kills the animals that prey on pests like malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Carcinogenicity was not a major factor in the restrictions on DDT use — the fact that it kills birds, fish, and beneficial insect species was.

    I can’t speak for Swartz, but at least his stuff is based in reality. Your call for Swartz to be run off the planet is offensive, and suggests you need to get a grip on reality.

    Like

  3. John, Channel Isles's avatar John, Channel Isles says:
    July 27, 2008 at 7:44 am

    Dear Mr Swatrz,

    Your article is the most conceipted and deceptive murderous excuses for the extreme danger of listening to greens who know nothing about science with their lame fears and ignorance of science.

    The FACTS of the science are Sri Lanka having only 17 cases of Malaria in 1964 but through stopping DDT spreying it rose to over 500,000 cases bu 1969 through the fears stoked up by the irresponsibly ignorant idealist, Ms Carson.

    The FACT is DDT spreying massively reduced death, particularly in children, in Thrid World Countries where it provided a very cheap highly effective solution to this murderous problem.

    On what grounds was it banned? As you say it “appeared to get cancer as a result”. “Appeared” is not science. It is a murderous shoulder shrug. It is the acute danger of having dumb idealists driving policy. The direct result of this disgustingly lame thinking is 50m people have died unneccessarily based on green propoganda.

    Your article starts with a slur campaign of the right wing followed by your lame excuses to ‘excuse’ this murderous (left wing) green action. I cannot put into words how digusting and morally reprehensible your politicised attitude is. You really do, like Ms Carson, need to be run off this planet.

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.