Malaria hotspots in India. Image from Nature magazine, 2010. News report on Lancet study that suggests mortality from malaria in India may be significantly higher than WHO reports indicate.
Good news from the war on malaria has been that annual deaths are calculated to be fewer than 1 million annually, as low as 880,000 a year — the lowest human death toll from malaria in human history.
Researchers in India suggest that deaths there are grossly underreported, however — not the 15,000 estimated by the World Health Organization, but closer to 200,000 deaths a year, nearly 15 times as great.
Reading that news, DDT partisans might get a little race of the pulse thinking that this might improve the urgency for the case for using more DDT, as advocated in several hoax health campaigns and media, such as the recent film “3 Billion and Counting.”
The problem, though, is that India is one of the few places where DDT manufacturing continues today, and India is one of the nations where DDT use is relatively unregulated and heavy. In short, if DDT were the miracle powder it’s claimed to be, any finding that malaria deaths are 15 times greater than reported by WHO is nails in the coffin of DDT advocacy.
Researchers based their estimate on interviews with family members of more than 122,000 people who died between 2001 and 2003. The numbers “greatly exceed” the WHO estimates of 15,000 malaria deaths in India each year, the researchers wrote in the study, published today in the journal The Lancet.
“It shows that malaria kills far more people than previously supposed,” said one of the study authors, Prabhat Jha of the Center for Global Health Research in Toronto, in a statement. “This is the first nationwide study that has collected information on causes of death directly from communities.”
Remote regions may have an undocumented malaria burden, because conventional methods of tracking the disease are flawed, according to the authors. In India, the government malaria data, which is used by the Geneva-based WHO, only counts patients who had tested positive for the disease at a hospital or clinic. Others who died of symptoms closely resembling the malady but didn’t get a blood test aren’t included, co-author Vinod Sharma of the Indian Institute of Technology in New Delhi said in an interview today.
The lack of accurate data may hinder efforts by governments and aid organizations to provide diagnosis and treatment to the population at risk, the authors said.
Watch. Advocates of poisoning Africa and Asia will claim scientists and environmental activists are somehow to blame for any underreporting, and they will call for more DDT use, claiming a ban has made India a refuge for malaria. Those reports will fail to mention India’s heavy DDT use already, nor will they suggest an ineffectiveness of the nearly-sacred powder.
The article in the Lancet became available on-line on October 21 — it’s a 4.5 megabyte .pdf document: “Adult and child malaria mortality in India: a nationally representative mortality survey.” A team of researchers is listed as authors of the study: Neeraj Dhingra, Prabhat Jha, Vinod P Sharma, Alan A Cohen, Raju M Jotkar, Peter S Rodriguez, Diego G Bassani, Wilson Suraweera,Ramanan Laxminarayan, Richard Peto, for the Million Death Study Collaborators.
Accurate counts of infections and deaths provide essential information for effective programming of the fight against the disease. Researchers point no particular fingers, but make the case in the article that better methods of counting and estimating malaria deaths must be found.
There are about 1·3 million deaths from infectious diseases before age 70 in rural areas in which fever is the main symptom. If there are large numbers of deaths from undiagnosed and untreated malaria in some parts of rural India then any method of estimating overall malaria deaths must rely, directly or indirectly, on evidence of uncertain reliability from non-medical informants and, although our method of estimating malaria mortality has weaknesses, indirect methods may be even less reliable. The major source of uncertainty in our estimates arises from the possible misclassifi cation of malaria deaths as deaths from other diseases, and vice versa. There is no wholly satisfactory method to quantify the inherent uncertainty in this, and indeed the use of statistical methods to quantify uncertainty can convey a false precision. However, even if we restrict our analyses to deaths immediately classifi ed by both physician coders as malaria, WHO estimates (15 000 deaths per year at all ages)1 are only one-eighth of our lower bound of malaria deaths in India (125 000 deaths below the age of 70 years; of which about 18 000 would have been in health-care facilities).
Our study suggests that the low WHO estimate of malaria deaths in India (and only 100 000 adult malaria deaths per year worldwide) should be reconsidered. If WHO estimates of malaria deaths in India or among adults worldwide are likely to be serious underestimates, this could substantially change disease control strategies, particularly in the rural parts of states with high malaria burden. Better estimates of malaria incidence and of malaria mortality in India, Africa, and elsewhere will provide a more rational foundation for the current debates about funding for preventive measures, about the need for more rapid access to malaria diagnosis, and about affordable access in the community to effective antimalarial drugs for children and adults.
More:
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
One last item before I leave for airport Ed ..
enjoy the read!
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Onlin
LikeLike
Kathy,
Obviously you’re too entrenched in your (sorely misinformed) position to seriously consider anything that Ed, or Ellie, or I say. But perhaps you’ll listen to Amir Attaran. He’s a strong advocate of using DDT to fight malaria and he’s guilty of propagating the ban myth, so needless to say I don’t agree with much what he has to say. But even he thinks 3 Billion and Counting (which seems to be your primary source for information on DDT) is way over the top.
See his review in The Lancet:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)62017-X/fulltext
Titled “A distorting take on DDT,” the review says, inter alia, “[Rutledge] claims DDT is suitable for many other diseases, some of which are not even insect-borne, and equates its rejection with genocide—overblown statements that are scientifically and legally untrue.”
LikeLike
And those who use DDT alone will die from malaria.
Your claims, Kathy, are that DDT has been suppressed unfairly, and as a result of that, people die from malaria.
Each part of that description is false. DDT is a dangerous environmental toxin whose broadcast and broad scale use was not stopped soon enough (frustrating the fight against malaria, ironically). The evidence against DDT is extensive, and much greater now than when it was banned from agricultural use. The abuse of malaria by DDT advocates killed the malaria eradication campaign in the 1960s — and if malaria deaths are to be “attributed” to anyone, it would be to those DDT advocates and abusers.
But the fight against malaria reduced malaria deaths to fewer than a million a year, the lowest in human history — mostly without DDT.
DDT still works in a few places, and can be used safely in small amounts. There is no shortage of DDT, however, and there is no evidence that more DDT would mean less malaria. There is much evidence that more DDT would mean more malaria, however.
LikeLike
GOOD Turns, in order to BE good turns, demand good results! I am for using “good turns” that show exactly that. Those who use bednets ALONE WILL ALWAYS GET MALARIA” and that is a direct quote from a bednet manager in Nairobi.
LikeLike
Where did Rutledge Taylor footnote his claim that WHO had “banned” DDT? Did you check that out?
Did you bother to check Milloy’s and Edwards’s footnote that eagles had prospered during the time DDT use was heaviest? Who said eagles prospered? What was the evidence?
No, I didn’t think you did.
Well, let me be honest: I was certain that you didn’t bother to check out any of the pro-DDT claims. No person with a hint of humanity left in them could check those claims and then repeat them. No person is that dishonest.
LikeLike
The Boy Scout slogan is “Do a Good Turn Daily.”
Kathy thinks that’s brainwashing, and should be avoided — ‘fight it till you drop! No good turns on Kathy’s watch!’
LikeLike
Hey Ed .. meant to say your “daze” is numbered!
And, just to let you know, I am off to my Beloved Africa! Will return in a couple of weeks, and at that time, will catch back up with you!
LikeLike
Sorry Ellie .. that I missed that you were for the intelligent use of DDT! Don’t give up .. as you will see .. the bed nets will not be required .. once the use of DDT is reinstated!
It is just a matter of time .. as truth .. once revealed .. can not be covered again!
Thanks!
LikeLike
Yes, Kathy, I’m certainly on the “ban wagon.” LOL! Perhaps if I repeat part of my post and put the pertinent words in CAPs it will be easier for you to comprehend.
“Your confession impelled me to add an extra donation to netsforlifeAfrica.org, which purchases and gives out long-lasting insecticide treated bed nets AND SUPPORTS THE INTELLIGENT USE OF SPRAY INSECTICIDES, INCLUDING DDT, OF COURSE – CONTRARY TO THE NONSENSE I’VE BEEN READING HERE.”
I’d put the “INCLUDING DDT” in bright red letters, but I don’t know how.
I think I’m done with this topic. It’s as bad as attempting to reason with creationists. It’s like trying to play chess with a hamster.
LikeLike
Ed you say:
Exactly. That’s what we’ve been urging you to do for some time. Don’t take anybody’s word for it — go and see for yourself. Follow the footnotes. Reject the cranks and quacks. Good idea.
Ed . .that is EXACTLY what I have been doing! That is how I got to see, all that you repeat here, is nothing but junk science! LOL Otherwise, I would be as you and Ellie, and the rest of the mis-guided enviros, continuing to believe what I was told 40 years ago. I was on the “ban” wagon for quite some time. I too, thought I was “above” real science and that I knew better because I accepted the junk science of the day, and ran with it. Those days are over. And, they are not over for just myself. They are over for many who have finally woke up and realized we were royally duped!
The belief that the earth was flat .. was “believed” for quite some time. It limited everyone from growing and enjoying all that was provided in this world for quite some time. When folks traveled and found out the earth was not flat .. and they did not return . .because they enjoyed their new found freedom, those back at home .. just ASSUMED that the earth was flat and the journey ended in disaster. Even when they were told it was not flat, there were those who were determined to hold to their “original” impressed beliefs. And Ed, that is what is happening with the environmental movement. Folks are seeing that just “believing” what they have been told, even when the facts were available to dispute the false claims, is not the intelligent way to go. And Ed, I do witness the “quack” .. and it is YOU! LOL Have fun quacking, as your days are numbered!!
LikeLike
Ed says: Nor could you give one.
But the truth is .. I could give one. It is very simple .. what Ellie did .. bought extra bednets for “me” whether I wanted them or not .. is EXACTLY what all enviro’s do! They FORCE their ideology on everyone .. because they have been brainwashed (what they have left of a brain) .. onto everyone. They assume (look up the word) that everyone MUST see as they see .. no matter how blind they are and determined to hold to their belief (look up the word) system .. never realizing .. their beliefs have been IMPOSED upon them. I, for one, am not fazed by such lunacy!
LikeLike
Kathy said:
What I pointed out in my last two responses to you is that your premise is in error. Not only are your claims false, and unsupportable by you or anyone else — the very premises you argue from are wrong.
Here, for example, you start arguing about using foggers and spraying broad areas out of doors with DDT (aerial spraying, I presume) — that absolutely is the wrong thing to do, and Fred Soper stopped such methods in the early 1950s.
That’s way beyond what even most DDT-happy people urge. You’re not fighting malaria with foggers. You’re killing off entire ecosystems for the hell of it. (Foggers and aerial spraying are fantastically non-selective, wasteful of DDT, and particularly deadly to fish, amphibians, and all predators of malaria-carrying mosquitoes).
You’ve gone beyond the pale in your advocacy, Kathy — around the bend, some might say.
So, what else is there to respond to?
(Actually, I had hoped to get back last night, but I didn’t, with a longer post. You’d have disliked that even more, I’m sure).
And you’ve been very confused by it. Your advocacy of junk science is quite breathtaking.
You’re so confused, you don’t realize you’re sniping at the scientists from the bunker of junk science.
DDT is a poison — forever. DDT use ruined the WHO plans to eradicate the world of DDT — forever. Now we must fight a holding action — we not forever, but if DDT advocates keep getting in the way of fighting malaria, we may have malaria forever. (You’d do really well to read Sonia Shah’s book, I think — The Fever: How Malaria Has Ruled Mankind for 500,000 Years. If you can’t be bothered with 300 pages of the facts, how about just reading a couple of her articles? For example, her Q&A at the Freakonomics blog:
You could learn a lot.)
Kathy wrote:
I’ve mentioned that maybe twice? In contrast, you’re repetitive mantra, “DDT! DDT! DDT!” is scientifically wrong, and morally vacuous. You keep linking the movie of that crank, Rutledge Taylor. And then you have the gall to claim I’m repeating myself!
Projecting much?
Exactly. That’s what we’ve been urging you to do for some time. Don’t take anybody’s word for it — go and see for yourself. Follow the footnotes. Reject the cranks and quacks. Good idea.
Nice to hear you say you’ll finally do it.
Nor could you give one.
When you check out the nets, send a contribution, will you? Nothing But Nets is endorsed by the Methodists. I think you’ll find them reputable.
LikeLike
And one more thing for both Ed and Ellie .. that I can not resist to respond to:
The entire medieval warming period, conveniently left out of the IPPC “science” and hockey stick calculations, is proof positive that man is in no wise responsible for “global warming”. There were no “machines” at that time and poor man is not to blame.
IF he were, he COULD rectify it. This is the whole trick, to make poor man responsible for something he can in no wise counter nor alleviate. The “hockey stick” seems quite aptly named, don’t you think? The impetus behind “taxing man” so that he be “sin repentant” is falling on increasingly public deaf ears. How is pushing a global tax on man going to alleviate changes in weather? Have you not heard the NEW hue and cry of the UN? It is now “Goodbye Global Warming, Hello Bio diversity!” We perhaps should follow the money or follow the endgame of all this nonsense!
LikeLike
Ed, you never address exactly what I say … as with your last two responses to me .. first “as Kathy advocates, spraying is not restricted to tiny amounts” and then ” Advocating for DDT use, especially excessive DDT use as Kathy is”.
I will not repeat what I said in my comments to Ellie .. you take the time to re-read and try to understand some very simple statements.
YOU might be confused, because junk science is very confusing. However, for me, I am not confused, and I
respect those that provide the real Science! The only time I have seen it on your site is when folks like Peter G or some others, have posted it. The truth is always SIMPLE, and it stays true .. forever.
And your attempts of such lame remarks .. over and over .. about spend $10 and save a kids life .. with a bed net .. should even be old to you by now. I am going to do my own research .. and find out who manufactures them, who gets the $10 and if there is a guarantee on those nets to perform as you say and SAVE A KIDS LIFE!
And Ellie .. your reaction does not even deserve a response from me.
LikeLike
Kathy, thank you for admitting that flapping your gums…or rather, on the Internet, your fingers about DDT is more satisfying than helping to save lives.
Your confession impelled me to add an extra donation to netsforlifeAfrica.org, which purchases and gives out long-lasting insecticide treated bed nets and supports the intelligent use of spray insecticides, including DDT, of course — contrary to the nonsense I’ve been reading here.
In other words, you’ve just helped save three lives in Africa, whether you wanted to or not. Thank you.
LikeLike
Same junk science people support bad use of other chemicals as support bad use of DDT.
DDT is not safer that other chemicals. It’s more acutely toxic to some life, it’s longer-lived and so more problematic in the long-run, as a poison.
Rachel Carson didn’t say “bring other poisons.” Environmentalists don’t make money off of manufacturing chemicals that take the place of DDT.
Beating malaria isn’t a war with environmentalists and scientists. They want to beat malaria. Advocating for DDT use, especially excessive DDT use as Kathy is, is not part of a beat malaria campaign. It’s part of an impugn environmentalists and poison Africa campaign.
Malaria wins that fight.
LikeLike
That’s the problem with the fanatic poisoners. Bednets are cheaper than DDT spraying, and more effective at preventing malaria. Any kid with a bednet is about 80% certain not to get malaria — in areas where bednets are deployed, malaria drops 50% to 85%. DDT spraying means a kid has about a 50/50 chance, at best.
If you donate $10 to Nothing But Nets, you save a kid’s life.
If you tell tall tales about environmentalists and make up stuff about how effective it is to poison Africa, it doesn’t cost you $10 — and no one is saved.
A key problem with DDT is that, at best, it’s a very temporary solution. Generally, use of DDT means malaria will be roaring back in a year, mosquitoes will have fewer or no predators (especially if, as Kathy advocates, spraying is not restricted to tiny amounts of the stuff, indoors).
We’ve seen that temporary solutions don’t become permanent solutions.
It’s time to stop advocating for poison, and advocate instead to beat malaria. Use of DDT is not a long-term solution to beating malaria, and that is why malaria is making such a great comeback in those nations that lean heavily on DDT use.
LikeLike
Ellie .. I do not support overkill of any product. Proper application with DDT, to bring about the results that we once benefitted from in these united States would be wonderful!
And yes, I had considered donating to bed nets .. when I thought that was the only way to go. However, since I have done some research and find the possibility of the peoples in other countries being able to live without Malaria, as we once enjoyed (not sure how long it will last, if DDT is not brought back), then I would prefer to put my efforts in a direction that I feel is more skillful.
LikeLike
Not sure what it is you are saying Ed. Could you please tell me how junk science advocates supporting corporations that produce chemicals known to be harmful to humans and the environment, are some how not to blame, at least to some extent, for not inquiring the facts surrounding DDT? For suely, if they did, they would not fight to ban a perfectly safe and cheap product for one that does harm.
LikeLike
Kathy, I’m sorry I was unclear. You stated your opinion about climate change and my response re: corporate profits was addressing that opinion. Why people want over use of DDT is completely beyond my ken and I do not address that.
Have you ever thought of saving your pennies and donating them to http://www.nothingbutnets.net or if you prefer a faith-based fund, http://www.netsforlifeafrica.org/?
LikeLike
So, in other words, the pro-poisoners’ charges against scientists and environmentalists are absolutely false and completely unfounded.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Ellie, from what I have uncovered, the only corporations that have made a profit are those that produce chemicals that are not as effective as DDT. They require more use and are damaging to humans and the environment. I do support DDT as it is safe and the cheapest available.
Dr. Taylor has addressed a review of his documentary on the link below. I invite you to view this.
Lancet Review: 3 Billion And Counting « 3 Billion And Counting
Open Letter to the Lancet Review of the film 3 Billion and Counting … While environmentalists from Rachel Carson onward often exaggerate DDT’s risks and …
3billionandcounting.wordpress.com/…/lancet-review-3-billion…
LikeLike
This is sorta what I mean by DDT advocates failing to understand what’s going on. Especially with DDT, but also with all other solutions, by the 1960s Soper and other malaria fighters knew a lot better — they didn’t use large fogging machines nor overhead aerial sprayers.
Read the article Gladwell did on Soper, will you? We’re talking about Indoor Residual Spraying. That’s why the discipline for sprayers and other malaria fighters was so necessary — they had to spray ONLY THE WALLS AND CEILINGS of 80% of the homes in the area to be effective.
Massive applications, with foggers and aerial sprayers, speed resistance to any pesticide, pose too great a risk to human health and all wildlife, and are absolutely uncalled for in fighting malaria.
LikeLike
Ed, this is in reference to your statement: ” Hundreds of deaths? Bullfeathers. Citation please. ”
Yes, Ed there were hundreds of deaths after and also a few years before the ban. The chemical ” substitutes ” such as Parathion recommended by Ruckelshaus, after banning the use of DDT in the U.S., were extremely toxic and caused hundreds of immediate deaths of farm workers accustomed to handling DDT. This is a fact that happened following the U.S. DDT ban and continues to this day. One of the substitutes for DDT called parathion was in use in 1970 before the DDT ban in 1972. NBC news aired a broadcast on August 25th, 1970 reporting that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had released a report saying ” 123 farm workers had died from parathion poisoning because they were used to handling DDT which is less dangerous.” Ed, there’s not been one single documented death ever attributed to DDT alone just as it is with nothing added to it. There is not one farm worker, DDT plant worker,nor sprayer who has ever been harmed by DDT.
Now Ed, this is from someone who is on the same page as you are Ed. It’s an excerpt from an article from an environmental law associate profesor which puts in perspective the dismal failure of what you thought would come about in saving the environment by getting rid of DDT. when it states: ” decades since the ban of DDT and its relatives, pesticides have caused the deaths of literally millions of birds, fish, and other wildlife, and have placed hundreds of threatened and endangered species at risk of extinction. Unfortunately, the laws governing pesticides conflict in a number of significant ways with the laws designed to protect wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. The laws differ dramatically in their goals, standards, focuses, and methods, creating barriers to compliance with species protection laws that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the agency charged with implementing the pesticide laws, has been unwilling or unable to overcome. These conflicting laws are particularly problematic when combined with EPA’s institutional bias in favor of approving pesticide use …(Angelo, The Killing Fields: Reducing the Casualties in the Battle Between U.S. Species Protection Law and U.S. Pesticide Law, 32 HARVARD ENVIRONMENTAL L. REV. 95-148 (2008).)”.
I provided in my other post statistics which I’ll provide again which you fail to address or even mention : ” The World Health Organization and the UN Environment Programme estimate that each year, 3 million workers in agriculture in the developing world experience severe poisoning from pesticides, about 18,000 of whom die.[19] According to one study, as many as 25 million workers in developing countries may suffer mild pesticide poisoning yearly.[40]
^ Jeyaratnam J (1990). “Acute pesticide poisoning: a major global health problem”. World Health Stat Q 43 (3): 139–44. PMID 2238694.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16999902
“Also, the The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 10,000-20,000 farmworkers are poisoned on the job due to pesticide exposure. (EPA, Worker Protection Standard, Economic Impact Analysis 1993). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that farmworkers suffer the highest rate of chemical-related illness of any occupational group: 5.5 per 1,000 workers. (52 Fed. Reg. 16050, 1987) Several states, e.g., California and Washington State, have state incident reporting systems. In California, in 2004, there were a total of 1,238 cases reported of which 828 were found to be possibly, probably or definitely related to pesticides. Of those 828 cases, 390 (47%) involved agricultural workers.http://www.fwjustice.org/pesticide-safety”
Well Ed, this is one of the elephants in the living room and your ignoring it wont make it go away by just saying: ” Hundreds of deaths? Bullfeathers. Citation please. “
LikeLike
Yes, the climate has always changed, but those who think man has nothing to do with are those who are ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the concept of “downstream,” or are too heavily invested in keeping corporate profits strong to admit the truth. I actually have less sympathy with the former than with the latter.
I’ve glanced at Dr. Cosmetic I Can Make You Look Younger Forever’s website. I’m not impressed.
As I said, interesting website. Full of “information.”
LikeLike
There is NO reason to worry about climate change . .the climate will ALWAYS change. Their point is MAN has not caused such. With the ideology that man is to blame, they can then convince our representatives to pass things like “cap and trade” which will do nothing for the environment, but strangle the tax payer. Lets stick to what they say about DDT. And Ellie .. do check out http://3billionandcounting.com and enjoy a wealth of information that you have not been privy to see for 40 years now! As the person in the article I referred to said, it is most difficult at first to realize we have been duped. I know, I felt the same. However, I am for saving humans, and feel the time for putting them first, instead of saving some insect, is a much more worthy cause!
LikeLike
Oh, how nice. I went to cfact.org and learned all kinds of things, such as there’s no reason to worry about global climate change, alternative energy sources are not important, and Monckton is a genius.
LikeLike
Sorry .. here is the link:
http://www.cfact.org/a/1839/Big-Green-Bus-has-flat-tires?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cfact+%28CFACT%29
LikeLike
Hey Ed ..
thought you would like to see this link. I thought this comment below .. really fits many who refuse to acknowledge the facts surrounding DDT . .and continue to support it’s ban:
“Environmentalists did harm by being ignorant and ideological and unwilling to change their mind based on actual evidence,” says Moore. But of course being Green has always meant singing another chorus of “Never Gonna Say I’m Sorry.”
LikeLike
Yes, I considered that. So I checked out each of her citations. As the Nobel Prize winners on President Kennedy’s Science Advisory Council discovered in 1963, I found each of her citations to be deadly accurate. I called several of the researchers still alive when I started this study several years ago, and they verified that Carson was right, and that Edwards was horribly wrong.
Then I tried to do the same with Edwards’ citations. I have yet to find one that is correct.
Peter, I know you have not bothered to check any of the citations, or you’d be too embarrassed to even raise this issue. Rachel Carson looks as honest as 100 Tenderfoot Scouts facing their boards of review, and Edwards looks like the golfer who lied so bad that when he got a hole in one, he wrote down “zero” on his scorecard.
Just today I got the 1970 newsletter in the mail, courtesy of the library at the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary. Peter, there is no increase in hawk populations. Joseph W. Taylor, the director of Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, wrote in the preface, “We are very fortunate to have so many of the distinguished ornithologists and conservationists whom we invited to report on the alarming population decline of certain hawks and related species.” Following that are a dozen pages with testimony from ornithologists, bird watchers and other scientists, attesting to the shocking decline in raptors, across the nation. Edwards and others got the citation exactly wrong — this is not testimony to an increase in hawks; it is completely the opposite, a long and sad plea for action to stop the plunge in raptor populations.
I have checked Carson’s citations and found her conservative and honest; I have checked Gordon Edwards citations and found him often in reckless and liberal disregard for the truth.
Should I await your retractions?
LikeLike
Ed, in these latest comments you say: ” Have you read Sonia Shah’s book? Or Gladwell’s account of Fred Soper’s campaign to eradicate malaria — which was killed by DDT abuse such as you appear to advocate now? ” Well Ed I’d like to mention that the ban on DDT was part of Fred Soper’s ” death knell. ” of Sopers vision. The ” DDT resistance ” propaganda is what put the nail in the coffin. Before the arrival of DDT on the scene Fred Soper who was a Rockefeller Foundation functionary in the late 30’s was fighting malaria with diesel oil and an arsenic-based mixture called Paris green. This mixture of Paris green was then spread were water had collected into stagnant pools, ditches and swamps as these were the breeding ground for the Gambiae larvae. Soper also used pyrethrum, a natural pesticide made from a variety of chrysanthemum. This pesticide was used to fumigate buildings. So during this period before DDT was discovered in the late 1930’s Paris green and pyrethrum were the early insecticides. They had to be applied repeatedly. As pyrethrum killed only the mosquitoes that were present at that moment when it was sprayed. When DDT arrived on the scene Soper was jubilant that here you could spray a tiny amount on a wall, and that single application would kill virtually every mosquito landing on that surface for the next six months. From the incredible results Soper was having with DDT a vision arose from it. His vision formed itself in 1955 into the Global Malaria Eradication Program which was backed by the WHO. Between 1945 up to 1965 DDT helped to save tens of millions of lives around the world. What happened Ed with the campaign was not as you claim. It was not DDT abuse but not enough DDT use. The exact opposite of what you claim. The ” DDT resistance ” propaganda is what swayed folks into discontinuing the program.
Dr Donald Roberts stated in part during the 2005 U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and public works hearings the following: ” DDT was a new, effective, and exciting weapon in the battle against malaria. It was cheap, easy to apply, long-lasting once sprayed on house walls, and safe for humans. Wherever and whenever malaria control programs sprayed it on house walls, they achieved rapid and large reductions in malaria rates. Just as there was a rush to quickly make use of DDT to control disease, there was also a rush to judge how DDT actually functioned to control malaria. That rush to judgment turned out to be a disaster. At the heart of the debate—to the extent there was a debate—was a broadly accepted model that established a mathematical framework for using DDT to kill mosquitoes and eradicate malaria. Instead of studying real data to see how DDT actually worked in controlling malaria, some scientists settled upon what they thought was a logical conclusion: DDT worked solely by killing mosquitoes. This conclusion was based on their belief in the model. Scientists who showed that DDT did not function by killing mosquitoes were ignored. Broad acceptance of the mathematical model led to strong convictions about DDT’s toxic actions. Since they were convinced that DDT worked only by killing mosquitoes, malaria control specialists became very alarmed when a mosquito was reported to be resistant to DDT’s toxic actions. As a result of concern about DDT resistance, officials decided to make rapid use of DDT before problems of resistance could eliminate their option to use DDT to eradicate malaria. This decision led to creation of the global malaria eradication program. The active years of the global malaria eradication program were from 1959 to 1969. Before, during, and after the many years of this program, malaria workers and researchers carried out their responsibilities to conduct studies and report their research. Through those studies, they commonly found that DDT was functioning in ways other than by killing mosquitoes. In essence, they found that DDT was functioning through mechanisms of repellency and irritancy. Eventually, as people forgot early observations of DDT’s repellent actions, some erroneously interpreted new findings of repellent actions as the mosquitoes’ adaptation to avoid DDT toxicity, even coining a term, “behavioral resistance,” to explain what they saw. This new term accommodated their view that toxicity was DDT’s primary mode of action and categorized behavioral responses of mosquitoes as mere adaptations to toxic affects. However this interpretation depended upon a highly selective use of scientific data. The truth is that toxicity is not DDT’s primary mode of action when sprayed on house walls. Throughout the history of DDT use in malaria control programs there has always been clear and persuasive data that DDT functioned primarily as a spatial repellent. Today we know that there is no insecticide recommended for malaria control that rivals, much less equals, DDT’s spatial repellent actions, or that is as long-acting, as cheap, as easy to apply, as safe for human exposure, or as efficacious in the control of malaria as DDT.”
Next Ed, I would like to address the statement were you say: ” I consider anything from Gordon Edwards after 1962 to be false, unless proven otherwise. He lied about the Audubon Society bird counts, he lied about the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary bird counts, he lied about Rachel Carson’s citations to research, he lied about the DDT experiments in which non-predators were fed DDT . . . you can’t use him as a source.” Well Ed did you ever consider that Rachel Carson was the liar. Her book was a lie and engendered fear basically. She lied throughout to an extreme, went to extreme measures, to cover up her sickness and by that I mean lying in the extreme. Took different routes and cars to the clinic. Lied, said she had flu, had arthritis, anything but the truth. She was afraid said her assistant, after announcing to the surprise of the public that Carson had died, “that she was afraid the chemical companies would think she had an agenda.” Ya think? Her co author quit the project and announced in print that ” she was attempting to convince the public that their world was being poisoned. He was a science editor, and quit in disgust. She fashioned the book on the bestseller novel “100,000,000 Guinea Pigs” written in 1930/s. Her book was considered by serious scientist to be sensationalist suggestive fear inducing innuendo with half truths of science which is not truth at all. If you read the Guinea Pig, it is remarkable how much Silent Spring resembles it in tone and fear inducement.
And finally these statistics that I posted Ed. Are they also lying ? Where is your zeal to save the environment when you say and do nothing of the real poisoning of people and the environment happening now. With the chemical “substitutes ” for pesticides that have been introduced since the ban on DDT. Starting with the toxic pesticides recommended by Ruckelshaus during his time with the EPA up to the current batch raising havock in the environment, killing people and causing cancers etc. Doing the very thing you accuse DDT of having done. Well Ed, Mr Hundreds of deaths? Bullfeathers. Below is your legacy enjoy it.
” The World Health Organization and the UN Environment Programme estimate that each year, 3 million workers in agriculture in the developing world experience severe poisoning from pesticides, about 18,000 of whom die.[19] According to one study, as many as 25 million workers in developing countries may suffer mild pesticide poisoning yearly.[40]
^ Jeyaratnam J (1990). “Acute pesticide poisoning: a major global health problem”. World Health Stat Q 43 (3): 139–44. PMID 2238694.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16999902
“Also, the The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 10,000-20,000 farmworkers are poisoned on the job due to pesticide exposure. (EPA, Worker Protection Standard, Economic Impact Analysis 1993). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that farmworkers suffer the highest rate of chemical-related illness of any occupational group: 5.5 per 1,000 workers. (52 Fed. Reg. 16050, 1987) Several states, e.g., California and Washington State, have state incident reporting systems. In California, in 2004, there were a total of 1,238 cases reported of which 828 were found to be possibly, probably or definitely related to pesticides. Of those 828 cases, 390 (47%) involved agricultural workers.http://www.fwjustice.org/pesticide-safety“
LikeLike
I consider anything from Gordon Edwards after 1962 to be false, unless proven otherwise. He lied about the Audubon Society bird counts, he lied about the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary bird counts, he lied about Rachel Carson’s citations to research, he lied about the DDT experiments in which non-predators were fed DDT . . . you can’t use him as a source.
In contrast, we have Rachel Carson’s work, verified in 1963 by the President’s Science Advisory Council and its Nobel-laureate members, verified by the National Academy of Sciences in 1970, and the ATDSR stuff which cites DDT as a carcinogen in mice — still, today, something they could not do were it accurate that the claim is based on false testimony.
I think your source is rotten.
Got anyone else to verify?
LikeLike
Peter, what are your sources? Your history is much different from that recounted by the Centers for Disease Control (the group set up to fight malaria in the U.S., and much different from other histories.
Have you read Sonia Shah’s book? Or Gladwell’s account of Fred Soper’s campaign to eradicate malaria — which was killed by DDT abuse such as you appear to advocate now?
LikeLike
Ed, In touching on some of the issues you brought up in your comment. I’d like to mention that it’s my understanding that since the extensive and successful use of DDT in the U.S.ended with the complete eradication of malaria from the United States that DDT has not been used overhead, nor in fogging machines. Enough to kill back or repel mosquitoes so that malaria cases can be isolated completely and rehabilitated so no longer a threat to other populations. Did you know that in the Panama canal they put the sick in fine wire cages. ? The next thing would be draining most wetlands that are nothing more than mosquito breeding grounds. And most important get poverty under control and with it taking the steps of window screens in clinics and hospitals and homes and the further draining of potholes and such can be very effective. Also Ed, I’d like to ask you if you recommend pouring oil and pesticides on all standing water and slow moving bodies of water like they did in Panama? Is that your answer? We are talking about huge malaria endemic areas. Not one the small size of the panama canal zone. The use of horrible chemicals with oil poured on all open and standing water and slow water in the Panama Canal Zone did the trick there. And that is in a very small containable area too. But here in the U.S. it was the prolific and abundant use of DDT in southern USA up to and beyond the Mason Dixie line that cleared out the mosquito vector long enough to isolate malaria cases and get them well. Thus eradicating malaria totally in the US. For the vector has to be interrupted with abundant use of DDT to give enough time to treat and clear malaria from individuals who are the carriers. Or as a Zen saying: ” No house, no termites ”
DDT has never been used enough to start with, to get the program off the ground. The scare campaign against DDT have brought the use of DDT to a mere spray bottle inside a hut. Now that is a damm shame Ed. We did not do that with New Orleans. We did not give them spray bottles of pesticides. We carpet bombed during the Katrina debacle with U.S. Airforce Reserve C-130 Hercules from the 911th Airlift Wing at Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio.They flew over New Orleans and other affected Gulf Coast and massively sprayed Dibrom to stem any viral and stagnant waters to kill mosquitoes and filth flies which are capable of of transmitting diseases as Malaria, West Nile virus and various types of Encephalitis. The C-130 is capable of spraying about 60,000 acres per day. And massively spray they did. So why don’t we practice what we preach to other countries HERE ?? And as you know Ed, the pesticide Dibron is much much more harmful than DDT. So how come you weren’t over there with your banner protesting the poisoning of folks and the ecosystem.?
Ed, you also keep bringing up the ” resistant to DDT ” propaganda. One thing that I’ve noticed is that the main claim by the environmentalists is that DDT doesn’t work anymore in killing insects such as mosquitoes, bedbugs etc. They use the ” resistance argument. ” This argument for me doesn’t hold any water from what I’ve learned about “behavioral resistance”, from what Dr. Ronald R. Roberts says about it. From what I see it has nothing to do with the insects dying from DDT toxicity but it is actually about the repellent action that is DDT’s actual function. It provides “spatial repellency ” so that the insects get disoriented and avoid the area. Looks to me like the environmental movement early on created a non-sequitur of the term “resistance” by linking it with death. Thus creating a new fake meaning that implied ” resistance to dying.” So that if they didn’t die from DDT it meant that the had evolved an immunity to it. While all along it had nothing to do with killing them that made DDT effective. It’s repellency not death that is the real meaning of resistance in the case of DDT. Also they go on to cite studies of insects saying that the insects mutated years ago through a ” knockdown-type nerve insensitivity mechanism. ” And conclude that DDT by being widely used in the past that now it has likely predisposed the insects such as mosquitoes and especially the bedbugs to resistance through the neuronal insensitivity mechanism. Well DDT was never supposed to kill the insects in the first place. This ” knockdown-type nerve insensitivity mechanism ” has nothing to do with DDT’s repellent activity. No matter how the insects mutates it always remains repelled by DDT. So this would apply to bedbugs also. The environmental movement’s incessant drumbeat keeps everyone focused on how DDT won’t kill mosquitoes and bedbugs meanwhile sidestepping and diverting attention away from the fact of DDT’s repellency property
Also Ed, you mentioned ” There is no rush to get DDT beyond what WHO uses.” Well Ed, the WHO has no DDT. They are a simple bureaucracy! And also Ed you claim ignorance of the ” cash cow ” that the DDT hoax generates. So you do not think there is money to be had to keep DDT off the market? You just do not know how “grant” monies and stipulations to same work. If you did, you would never make such a rash statement. Let me ask you in another way. Are you an environmental lawyer? Have you done “legal” work for the “environment” or for EPA and or its subsidiaries? There is quite a bit of money to be made there.
Ed you also said in your commentary that: ” At least one death, yes. It was a child who drank a DDT solution used by her family. The solution included kerosene, and so DDT advocates love to claim that it was the kerosene that killed her. Alas, the amount drunk was less than 4 ounces. 4 ounces of kerosene isn’t fatal. The kid developed acute nerve damage and convulsions as other DDT overdosed animals do, and died despite the kerosene being pumped away.”
Well, I stand by that pure unmixed DDT just as it is with nothing added to it has never killed one single person. No deaths have ever been attributed to DDT alone. Now Ed, if you can come up with only one death from what you say, after such a vast use of DDT, that is marvelous. But, when DDT is ever involved it is usually mixed with some deadly thing like Kerosene, and DDT gets blamed!. Of course, it could not be that drinking kerosene would hurt anyone. Four ounces? Dear god. And when Greenpeace pushed I think it was in Chile, to ban chlorine from drinking water because “it was found that it MIGHT be carcinogenic to one out of 100,000 people——they did, they banned it and droves of folks died from cholera before they put the chlorine back in the water.
And in regards to the statement I made of: “and the ” substitutes ” recommended by Ruckelshaus were extremely toxic and caused hundreds of immediate deaths of farmworkers accustomed to handling DDT “.Your reply was ” Hundreds of deaths? Bullfeathers. Citation please.” Well Ed, according to: The World Health Organization and the UN Environment Programme estimate that each year, 3 million workers in agriculture in the developing world experience severe poisoning from pesticides, about 18,000 of whom die.[19] According to one study, as many as 25 million workers in developing countries may suffer mild pesticide poisoning yearly.[40]
^ Jeyaratnam J (1990). “Acute pesticide poisoning: a major global health problem”. World Health Stat Q 43 (3): 139–44. PMID 2238694.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16999902
Also, the The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 10,000-20,000 farmworkers are poisoned on the job due to pesticide exposure. (EPA, Worker Protection Standard, Economic Impact Analysis 1993). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that farmworkers suffer the highest rate of chemical-related illness of any occupational group: 5.5 per 1,000 workers. (52 Fed. Reg. 16050, 1987) Several states, e.g., California and Washington State, have state incident reporting systems. In California, in 2004, there were a total of 1,238 cases reported of which 828 were found to be possibly, probably or definitely related to pesticides. Of those 828 cases, 390 (47%) involved agricultural workers.http://www.fwjustice.org/pesticide-safety
Finally, I’d like to provide the source to the quote on the mice experiment. It was Dr. Gordon Edwards. This is what it says: ” During the EPA Hearings on DDT, Samuel Epstein testified that he was a member of the H.E.W. panel on carcinogens, but under cross-examination he admitted that he was not. In his testimony, Epstein also alleged that tests by Fitzhugh, Davis and Gross indicated that mice with DDT in their diet developed cancer. Epstein failed to point out that the control mice developed 26% more cancers than did the DDT-fed mice. That omission was obviously intentional and many scientists considered it to be unethical! (ynpxtpnb.apollohosting.com/ddponline.org/epa.doc)
LikeLike
Kathy, is that the same ACSH described in this post?
LikeLike
Just found this and thought it interesting:
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.2047/news_detail.asp
And..
I did not find it at the http://www.3billionandcounting.com site .. but .. wouldn’t hurt to go there as well .. for facts!
LikeLike
They’re behind the BCS, too!
LikeLike
Tim Lambert’s been at the DDT-advocate take downs longer than Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub has — you should see the discussion in this thread that started out with Stewart Brand’s error in following the pro-DDT advocates — see especially the discussion, and careful, complete dismembering of the pro-DDT arguments by Lambert.
LikeLike
Get a good book about the building of the Panama Canal. (Here’s a link to McCullough’s Path Between the Seas. I’ve not read it, but I’ll wager he talks about beating the mosquito-borne diseases, and it was done without DDT. Have we grown stupid since 1915?) The construction crews had to beat malaria before they could build the canal. The canal opened in 1915. DDT wasn’t available for use against mosquitoes by civilians for another 30 years.
What did malaria fighters do in the interim?
Peter, you ask as if you think DDT were some sort of permanent solution to malaria. But it’s not, and it was never intended to be. Fred Soper’s super-ambitious campaign to eradicate malaria from the world used DDT, but only as a temporary fix while humans were cured of the disease. Soper’s research showed that DDT cannot eradicate mosquitoes, and they’ll come roaring back at some point. Soper planned to have malaria gone from humans when that happened, so the mosquitoes would be annoying, but not deadly.
So, you want to use DDT? Great solution for a short period of time.
What is your plan for when the mosquitoes come rushing back in double or triple the numbers they had before, and more resistant to DDT?
In your rush to condemn scientists and environmentalists, you’ve forgotten that the problem is malaria. Mosquitoes are just a vector of the disease at one stage.
Won’t you consider fighting malaria, instead of fighting mosquitoes? Better payoffs.
172 nations signed the Stockholm Convention. About 99 nations have malaria problems. Two, maybe three have “spoken up” with idiots screaming for DDT recently. Less than 2%.
I think you’re cherry picking evidence all the way around.
There is no rush to get DDT beyond what WHO uses.
Peter, you’re projecting. You give us propaganda, not science. You give us faith in poison, ungrounded in any science, not policy devised by malaria-fighting professionals. You give us the party line, contrary to the facts, contrary to history, contrary to history.
That’s a crock. No one makes money by recommending against DDT use. DDT manufacturers make money if it’s used. That’s it.
What you allege is a crass lie, Peter. I note you offer this claim wholly without evidence, as if we should accept it. The fact is, you can’t name anyone who could make money off of not using DDT.
Do you think about these sorry tales that are handed to you before you repeat them?
You have a lot of damnable gall to pose a hoax claim for DDT, and then claim that the evidence against DDT — uncontradicted by any research for 50 years — is instead the hoax.
Let me guess: Are you creationist? Do you yearn to see Obama’s Kenya birth certificate? Are you certain the Illuminati fix the World Series? Is there any hoax you won’t fall for?
Again you make scurrilous and false claims. Shame on you, Peter.
“Green dole?” You know nothing about research, do you.
Can you tell us where this “green dole” is, who administers it, and who is on it?
Shame on you for spreading hoax information.
There’s a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, one in Physiology, and probably another in Peace, for anyone who could provide evidence to back your claims.
Shame on you for repeating falsehoods.
Can you name one institution whose livelihood depends on NOT using DDT, and on providing evidence against DDT?
You’re hallucinating.
Name one, Peter.
Shame on you.
At least one death, yes. It was a child who drank a DDT solution used by her family. The solution included kerosene, and so DDT advocates love to claim that it was the kerosene that killed her.
Alas, the amount drunk was less than 4 ounces. 4 ounces of kerosene isn’t fatal. The kid developed acute nerve damage and convulsions as other DDT overdosed animals do, and died despite the kerosene being pumped away.
There are allegations of suicides in India from DDT.
It’s a lousy way to die, because it’s not really all that toxic — it makes your liver and brain fry, and doesn’t kill quickly.
But yes, there are recorded human deaths.
Odd that you make that claim without any citation. Surely, were that true, you’d have the researcher’s name and the citation.
I gave you the summary citation to the agencies that set the guidelines on toxins.
Got a citation, or is this something else you’ve imagined?
Hundreds of deaths? Bullfeathers. Citation please.
Um, DDT on crops was sprayed from airplanes, generally. Are you alleging pilots died? What is your claim, exactly?
Give us the citations. You’ve made so many false claims in this post, I can’t take any at face value.
LikeLike
Karl, in your post you mentioned that: ” If DDT were the only tool to fight malaria, then even as imperfect as it is, there’d be no argument: spray, spray, spray! But we have other tools–better tools and cheaper tools.” Would you be so kind to name all those better options. If possible please elaborate in detail what can be done right now with the ” better tools and cheaper tools ” that you mention. Lets suppose that DDT doesn’t exist anymore. It was never discovered. What would be your approach and the approach of the folks whose meetings you attend right now to deal with this problem. Not some vaccines in the future but what is available right now and is working saving lives.
Now for Ed’s comments I’d like to add to them by saying that it looks to me from what is popping up in the news that there seems lately to be more Nations that are speaking up because they are tired of their people dying of a disease so easily eradicated if DDT is used enough. It seems those folks currently on the ground in the midst of the actual conditions know this. That’s why they are speaking out saying ” give us DDT ”
On your end Ed when I read what you say it seems to me that all you are doing is spouting ” the official party line. ” As you know the livelihoods and incomes generated by the DDT hoax must be preserved at all cost. If the DDT hoax is exposed there will be a lot of jobs generated by it that will disappear. For the scientists on the ” green dole ” it would signify their death. For the entire fictional identity of who they are is made up by this false environmental view of the world. Their very fictional life depends on this hoax of DDT and now carbon to continue. Their seeming entire status in society, among their peers depends on this hoax. They can’t continue to seemingly exist without this hoax perpetuating their illusory persona. Their fake political & scientific careers and illicit grants to pay for their complicity in promoting the hoax cannot be seemingly renounced by them. They seemingly ” believe ” that the ecological environmental DDT hoax & carbon hoax is their supply. That pretty much sums it up. God Is Supply but for these seemingly perplexed folks the HOAX is supply and that their money and pseudo careers and status & prestige is derived from working for and promoting the hoax. The folks that are seemingly invested in this DDT hoax depend on it to continue their illusive power and supply. Their seeming bogus livelihoods and institutions behind it depends on this hoax. Without this DDT myth they would have no seeming jobs and the status & power these fake careers bring with them. It all seems to boil down to $$$. They wouldn’t defend this hoax if there wasn’t any money involved. Let’s ask them to go out and volunteer & promote the DDT hoax or the carbon hoax on the condition that no money and no career at all can be seemingly made from it. Let’s see how “devoted” they are when there is no money involved.
Also Ed in regards to your reiteration of DDT killing folks. There never has been a single death attributed to just DDT as it is by itself. Also Ed the study you cite that claimed DDT fed mice developed tumors was true ——- with this exception ——- the non fed mice developed more tumors !!!!!! You forget to mention that part of the story so that a half truth will sell in order to frighten the people to accept the DDT hoax. And the ” substitutes ” recommended by Ruckelshaus were extremely toxic and caused hundreds of immediate deaths of farmworkers accustomed to handling DDT. These farmworkers had been using DDT safely for years and so when given the new ” alternatives ” to DDT assumed it was just like DDT so that is how they used the ” new DDT substitutes. Well hundreds of them died and their deaths were excused by Ruckelshaus as ” workers needing training” to handle the extremely toxic, but new, substitutes for DDT.
LikeLike
Alas, that magazine cover predates me.
But I’m fully aware of the AFM/Big Tobacco/Mining nexus. The tobacco archive document in which Bate proposes the idea of AFM to R.J. Reynolds as strategy to divide the environmental movement has been written about in a number of places. I think it’s about the tobacco only doc that mentions AFM or Bate et al. I’ve searched it many a time with various key words and haven’t been able to find anything else.
LikeLike
More and more, it looks to me as if Tren, Bate & Co. are saying “poison Africa or we shoot this dog.”
Are you old enough to remember that reference, Karl?
Karl, I was reminded of the tobacco archives and their potential for shedding light on the unholy campaign against Rachel Carson and scientists, by this odd little posting at Pure Poison. Do you know if anyone has indexed the tobacco papers to see exactly what the relationship is between, say, Africa Fighting Malaria and the anti-WHO campaign by tobacco companies? (Do a search there for “Roger Bate;” it’s most revealing.)
LikeLike
Well said, Ed. It’s unfortunate that Namibia’s minister of health and social services has only a tenuous understanding of the Stockholm Convention. In the full WSJ piece that ACSH is quoting (available here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704366704575598430015766468.html?mod=googlenews_wsj), Kamwi (or whoever ghostwrote this thing–I suspect African Fighting Malaria, as it sticks pretty darn close to the usual AFM script) writes that “As DDT is essential for malaria control, it is the only chemical classified as a ‘persistent organic pollutant’ that can still be used.” This is false. Lindane and PFOS are other persistent organic pollutants listed in the Convention, but still allowed to be used in certain circumstances. Perhaps a minor point, but it belies a misunderstanding of the Convention.
A bigger, even more telling error of fact is this one: “Regrettably the secretariat of the Stockholm Convention envisages halting all production of DDT in just seven years.” Guess what: The secretariat has absolutely zero decision making authority. It would take a consensus (i.e. unanimous) decision by the Convention’s 172 parties to do such a thing. Such a decision hasn’t been taken; such a decision hasn’t even been proposed. There is no action being taken under the Convention to stop DDT production in 7 or 17 or 70 years. I should know: actually attend the Convention’s main meetings as an observer. But if you don’t believe me, you can go to the website (www.pops.int) and read the meeting reports and browse the decision documents. You won’t find ANY mention of any move to halt DDT production in 2017 or any other year.
But the biggest problem with the editorial is that it, like most the editorials by AFM, frames the debate as spraying DDT or letting malaria run wild, and this, of course, is a false dichotomy as pointed out in this letter by Herren and Mbogo responding to comments by AFM: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1002279 . If DDT were the only tool to fight malaria, then even as imperfect as it is, there’d be no argument: spray, spray, spray! But we have other tools–better tools and cheaper tools. And the best strategy for one location may not be the right approach in another. Pretending otherwise is not only disingenuous, but actually dangerous, since it clouds the debate, meaning that decision makers need to sift through unnecessary layers of BS to get to the accurate information they need to make decisions that will hopefully save lives.
LikeLike
Peter recommends this article to us:
I’ll call his bluff.
Under the Stockholm Convention, to use DDT completely within the terms of the convention Namibia’s health minister must — drum roll please — send a letter to the World Health Organization’s group on the Stockholm convention informing them that Namibia will use DDT.
That’s it.
See Annex A of the Treaty, Part II (page 25 of the .pdf):
If DDT were a wonder poison, that’s not much of a burden.
I suspect DDT isn’t used so much in Namibia because Namibia doesn’t have the leadership to run a well-disciplined Indoor Residual Spraying campaign. I could be wrong — but that’s the only serious barrier there.
The article continued:
But they are really cranking out the stuff. So what? How is it a problem if there is just one manufacturer? (Is that correct, even?)
That’s crapola. DDT is not greatly toxic, acutely — to humans. It may not be a powerful carcinogen, to humans. But that’s not the same thing as “safe.” DDT acts like estrogen. Given in utero, or to children, it shrinks testicles and gives little boys swollen mammaries. DDT is implicated in causing premature onset of menstruation in girls. DDT and other endocrine disruptors team up to make fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds, reproductive messes. This is a serious water pollution problem. It is sheer luck that humans are not screwed up so badly as rockfish — it’s luck, not safety.
Were DDT safe, it would be useless as a pesticide. Toxicity of DDT is what makes it valuable as a pesticide. Anyone who tells you DDT isn’t poisonous is a fool, really stupid, or a liar.
Quite the contrary. DDT is tough on livers of all mammals, we know. It’s a known mammal carcinogen (did you know humans are mammals?). DDT kills kids who drink it, we know from sad accidents. Workers who handled the stuff got chloracne and liver abnormalities — but generally, not cancer.
“Not quite as carcinogenic as tobacco” does not mean “harmless.” That claim is just a flat out, bald-faced prevarication.
Against acute infestations of lice in the 1940s, yes. Against malaria-carrying mosquitoes, prior to the development of resistance, yes.
Now, not so much.
But DDT in tightly controlled situations, in small amounts — as is currently done.
We don’t need “more DDT.” We don’t need to spray DDT in more places. We don’t need to take DDT out of doors.
“More DDT” is not the answer. If it were, India would have been rid of malaria a decade ago. India is the world’s heaviest producer and user of DDT — and malaria is spreading.
What does that tell us? It tells us DDT is not the tool to use to beat malaria.
Perhaps. But we need to remember that the “500 million saved lives” attributed in a 1970 National Academy of Sciences publication was a goof — it miscounted annual malaria infections as total lives saved.
Antibiotics may have saved more lives.
There is no disputing that DDT was useful. The problem is, as the National Academy of Sciences said in 1970, despite its great value, its dangers outweigh the benefits.
In other words, though it may be greatest lifesaving chemical, it also is among the greatest life-taking chemicals.
Dose and location are key. For DDT, we’ve exceeded the worldwide dosage already.
Okay, let’s be clear: This man is a fool, or a charlatan. There was no hysteria that caused four federal courts and three federal agencies to stop the use of DDT over 15 years of careful study. If this guy thinks Rachel Carson was wrong, he should publish a study showing contrary results to any of the studies she cited in 53 pages of careful footnotes. Since 1962 note a single footnote of Rachel Carson’s has been successfully challenged by peer-reviewed research.
Does this guy have the first study in 58 years to contradict one of hers? Let him cite the study.
Oh, look. No citation.
How can that be?
The man’s hysterical, especially in accusing sound science of being hysterical.
Ironic, no?
Ah, one of the great astroturf, corporate sponsored shills for poisons of all time. Are they still arguing that cigarette smoke is not damaging, too? ‘Cigarette smoke and DDT, two much maligned chemical concoctions!’
Give us a break, Peter! There are real scientists with concerns about DDT — must you cite the cranks?
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting article that ties in with this current discussion:
November 11, 2010
Namibian health minister: Give us DDT
Namibia’s minister of health and social services writes in The Wall Street Journal Europe that when it comes to using DDT for malaria control, his country and others still face pressure from anti-insecticide activists and restrictions from an international treaty called the Stockholm Convention. Spraying the insecticide inside houses to repel mosquitos (indoor residual spraying) is the cornerstone of an effort to eliminate the disease in southern Africa — but Richard Nchabi Kamwi says that the number of manufacturers of DDT have dwindled to just one, a state-owned factory in India. He writes further:
There are several reasons to defend DDT and ensure we have ongoing supplies. First, DDT is safe for humans and the environment. Since the 1940s thousands of scientific studies have investigated potential harm to human health from DDT. Almost all these studies are weak, inconclusive or contradictory; in other words there is no evidence of harm. On the other hand there is well-documented evidence of its great public-health benefits. As Minister of Health, I have to evaluate the full body of scientific evidence and balance risks. With regard to DDT and malaria, any rational balancing of risks will favor DDT.
“DDT has saved more lives than any other chemical known to man,” says Dr. Ross. “The hysteria-based, unscientific regulation of it — based mainly on Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the opposite of a science-based risk analysis — is intolerable and should be revoked.”
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.2047/news_detail.asp
LikeLike
Already provided Kathy. How many days behind are you?
What are your chops as a cancer researcher that we should take your word that the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute got it wrong?
More important: Where is your citation of a study going the other way?
LikeLike
Yes, good point. You should do your research properly. First, Ed, it is time for you to do it.
Ed, I asked for PEER REVIEWED studies. Hard science. You give me junk science. References to “links” in a study is NOT a peer- reviewed study. What you have offered I have perused. They offer nothing. You may have a “collection of studies” which are not worth the paper. Maybe worth the grant that paid for them.
LikeLike
That’s not what the definition you offered says. It’s not the definition Trudy offered.
Why not just cite the original article? Let’s see for ourselves.
I gave you the full EPA order Ruckelshaus signed. You’ve not responded.
LikeLike
I’ve offered several studies. You’ve not responded to them. I can wait until you catch up.
See here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/malaria-deaths-in-india-under-reported-bad-news-for-pro-ddt-partisans/#comment-106341
LikeLike
I don’t know that Ruckelshaus said what you claim. The first time you posted it, you said you don’t have the source. Your claim is unverified.
Also, you offer no source for your interpretation. When I point out that Ruckelshaus is a distinguished, careful, respected and honored attorney and is likely to be using the word “political” in a careful, surgical way, you claim I have to verify the quote you offered.
Astounding. If you have the material, let’s see it. If you have the source, cite it. Quit playing the troll. Stop asking me to do your homework.
She who asserts must prove. You do a lot of asserting, no proving so far.
LikeLike
Surely you jest! True, it does mean “legally correct” but morally corrupt. And it does NOT mean “SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE”. What he said simply CONFIRMS that the ban was “political” NEVER “scientific”. That the ban had its BASIS in politics, YES. A scientific basis? NO. Absolutely not! I am not here to argue politics. We all know what that is. It is the peer reviewed SCIENCE that was and IS sorely lacking and that is the reason this ban was such a human injustice, a virtual rape of innocent lives.
LikeLike
Your catty remarks do not cut it Ed. They have no substance. I am asking for substance. I am “asking for a fish, and you give a stone” yet rant on about something that you seem poorly equipped to PROVE. Show me the study I asked for. Show me the peer reviewed study that proves in ANY capacity that DDT is carcinogenic! The world is waiting, Ed. Here is your moment. Do not botch it up with non-sequitur, with lead away substance less remarks.
LikeLike
It is part of his announcement when he decided to ban DDT. Media archives Ed. You see, Ed, I have all the old newspapers and journals that YOU should have if you are going to pass yourself off as informed about the DDT BAN DEBACLE. To those I do not have, I have ACCESS to them. (Oh, and I love caps. Please feel free to use them to your heart’s content.)
LikeLike
Your remark about “prop 19” is amusing, but a rather “red herring” one. No “Ed’s lead away in comedy” will work for you, Ed. Stick with the subject matter. Either you know Ruckleshaus said EXACTLY what I quoted—- at least it is in black and white print— or you do not and perhaps should know. Do your research properly Ed.
LikeLike
That’s right. It was a government decision.
Kathy implies there is something wrong with government making a good decision on the basis of science, but your dictionary search doesn’t impute that sort of taint.
You got it with the first definition. Are you trying to put words in Ruckelshaus’s mouth that he did not say, like Kathy is?
You might do well to read the actual decision, some time. It’s loaded with information, but not at all what you claim.
It was by definition a political decision, small “p.” It was not a Political decision, meaning a decision made on the basis of politics, and not on the basis of sound policy.
Check the definition you offered, above. Yes, it was sound policy. Two different appeals courts ruled that it was done on the basis of sound science.
Why are you trying to rewrite the definition you found, which is so serviceable, and accurate?
Under U.S. law, agencies may not make such decisions on arbitrary and capricious bases — they must have substantial factual backing for what they do. The courts ruled that Ruckelshaus had sound scientific backing.
You’re smoking the same hallucinogen Kathy’s smoking? Are you guys cops? You know, they say cops have the best dope.
No, thank you, I’ve always found truth, honesty and sound data to lead to good decisions. I see no reason to throw ethics over the side to please you.
Used by professionals under tight control, DDT can probably be safely applied, though recently most scientists involved have been concerned about chronic exposures, especially to children.
In fact, that is WHO’s policy, and that is the policy supported by Environmental Defense — DDT for IRS, under tight controls.
But beyond that, you’re wrong. DDT is not safe. Were it not toxic, it would be totally useless as a poison, don’t you see? Poisons that are not poisonous really don’t do the trick. Do keep in mind what it is you’re arguing, so you don’t argue against yourself.
And DDT is listed as a carcinogen by EPA and the ATDSR. If you have contrary data, you should present it — but you’re bucking 40 years of research data by now.
Fortunately for all of us, DDT is probably a weak carcinogen in humans. Still, it’s rather poor form of you to call the American Cancer Society “wrong,” especially when you have not a single study to back your ridiculous claim. Those are good people at ACS, and your abuse of them only exposes you as having ignoble motives, it seems to me.
Bednets are a lot cheaper than DDT spraying. Bednets run about $10 each, and last five years. That’s $2.00/year. DDT spraying runs about $12 per application with the professional required to do the work, and must repeated every six months. That’s $24 per year. Bed nets run about 50% to 85% reduction in malaria; DDT runs about 25% to 50% reduction in malaria, with extensive coverage of local housing. So nets are more effective, and 12 times cheaper.
DDT is only effective in the long term if there is adequate medical care to diagnose and treat all the malaria in the area in a year or so. Nets are effective even without 80% coverage, and even without other improvements in medical care.
Few if any malaria fighters think we need more DDT. Why you choose to ignore the malaria fighters is a mystery to me. It smacks of big “P” politics, if you ask me.
LikeLike
Ed says: “Political with a small ‘p.’”
Which means, on the square, done by a government agency, legally correct, and scientifically accurate.
Did you think that was a confession of error? Look up “political.” [end quote]
…………………………………
Well, Ed, “political” means
• of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country : a period of political and economic stability.
• of or relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics : a decision taken for purely political reasons.
• interested in or active in politics : I’m not very political.
• motivated or caused by a person’s beliefs or actions concerning politics : a political crime.
• chiefly derogatory relating to, affecting, or acting according to the interests of status or authority within an organization rather than matters of principle.
[New Oxford American Dictionary]
Are you re-writing dictionary definitions, Ed? A “political” decision is NOT equal to a “scientific” decision. You simply can’t argue that point.
I’ve been watching you dance around Kathy’s statements. You are getting desperate, aren’t you? Lots of emotional bluster is coming from your keyboard… Why not try re-thinking your position? DDT is SAFE, does not produce cancer, and most definitely should be used for indoor spraying in countries hard-hit with malaria. All other methods are less effective and more costly.
LikeLike
“Political with a small ‘p.'”
Which means, on the square, done by a government agency, legally correct, and scientifically accurate.
Did you think that was a confession of error? Look up “political.”
LikeLike
You need to lay off the hallucinogens. Seriously.
LikeLike
If it’s a direct quote, can you tell me from where it comes?
Also, you’ll want to review the voluminous and comprehensive 1975 report of EPA to the House of Representatives on the banning of DDT and its effects, and justification in the light of new research. You may find the press release, much shorter, more to your liking.
You are aware of course that science doesn’t “prove” anything, but instead functions on disproofs.
DDT has been disproven as safe. Carcinogenic links are increasing — see these examples:
Breast cancer (note this study is 2009, well after early studies that claimed no link to breast cancer)
Breast cancer and links to age of exposure
Breast cancer, no connection (a good study summary which describes why DDT and DDE are so highly suspect as causes of breast cancer — the estrogen mimicking)
ATSDR data sheet on DDT, with a straight up description of what is known and not known about DDT and cancer
Pancreatic cancers
General health concerns
You keep saying that, and after repeated requests, above you admit you can’t verify your claim. So you repeat it, why?
When I met him in the middle 1980s, he was as firm as ever on DDT, and proud of his noble actions at EPA. What’s your source?
Actually, I don’t know that — I think it’s false. Generally, claims that a substance is carcinogenic must be linked to serious studies that show significance to a correlation between exposure and the cancer. From my decade of working with cancer epidemiologists, I’d say they are way, way over conservative on the issue. We’d get a cluster of a dozen juvenile cancers in a two-block area, and the scientists would say, ‘well, yeah, all those kids were exposed to something that causes cancer, but you can’t say that any of those cancers came from that exposure — maybe one of the kids would have gotten cancer anyway . . . you can say 11 of the 12 were caused by the substance, but you can’t say which 11 . . .’
As best I know, only substances shown to cause cancer are listed as carcinogens, and even showing a link to cancers is not enough. Scientists are careful not to label things carcinogenic when there is not a clear set of data that tends to prove the link.
I think you’re quite unfamiliar with cancer research.
Actually there are dozens of peer-reviewed studies. Attempts to disprove the links to breast cancer alone have produced a score of studies — many of which found no significant links to women exposed to DDT. However, studies show clear links to pre-cancerous conditions in the liver, and DDT is a certain carcinogen in mammals generally (and if you can find any other carcinogen that is known for mammals, but not for humans, please tell us about it). With a much better understanding about the mutations required for cancer, several recent studies have looked at the children of women exposed to DDT, born after the exposure — and there are clear links.
Check above. I offered several studies from the past two years that were peer reviewed, and which show links between DDT and cancer.
You should also check the Pine River Statement. Experts from around the world gathered at Alma College in Michigan to look specifically at the issue of human health and DDT — they don’t support your views.
That’s rather a tragedy. They are learning false stuff? From whom, from you?
Shame on you.
Yes, your Popeness. The Earth doesn’t move [much, in relation to the rest of the universe].
But DDT is a toxin, a danger to ecosystems, and a carcinogen, even to humans.
You would do well to study the history of DDT and malaria in recent decades.
1. DDT offered a tool for the fight to eradicate malaria for a few years in the late 1950s to mid 1960s, when abuse of DDT by large agricultural interests had bred mosquitoes that were resistant and immune to DDT, so the World Health Organization had to scrap the program to eradicate malaria. (1965) By then, the annual death toll to malaria had fallen under 3 million annually. Even though the program to eradicate malaria was abandoned, WHO simply regrouped to fight the disease, and WHO’s policies continued the use of DDT where it might still be effective, though this required genotyping of mosquitoes in order to determine whether they carried the anti-DDT mutation.
2. DDT was banned from agricultural use in the U.S. because of its destructive tendencies to wildlife, in 1972, years after WHO stopped heavy use of DDT in Africa and Asia. The death toll to malaria was about 2 million per year.
3. After that time, the fight against malaria produced solid results until the pharmaceuticals used to treat the disease in humans, also began to fail due to the parasites’ developing resistance to it. (1980s) The development of drugs from a Chinese herb provided a new treatment for humans, and ACT therapies continued the progress against malaria.
4. After 2001, increasing focus on fighting malaria produced new tactics, including broadscale distribution of free bednets to stop infected mosquitoes from biting. When Africans complained about DDT use, WHO issued a press release in late 2005 and conducted a campaign through 2006 to stress that its use of DDT was limited, and safely done.
5. By 2008, the malaria death toll was under a million, annually.
LikeLike
Prop 19 didn’t pass, Kathy. Whatever you’re smoking is illegal, even if you’re in California.
LikeLike
You say Ed, It is true that ddt is carcinogenic. Would you PLEASE provide the peer reviewed study that so states? Your position has been so debunked that I am amazed you can make such a statement. There are many scientists waiting for you to reveal the peer reviewed study upon which you make such an astounding statement.
LikeLike
Ed, perhaps when you post your next comment, you could use lots of caps. Apparently, that makes one’s argument more forceful. Just a suggestion…
LikeLike
Ed, this is not according to Kathy, but according to EPA director Ruckleshaus, initially that he banned DDT because “it was possibly carcinogenic” and that is a direct quote.
Tell me, name to me the “studies” that have PROVED that DDT is at all carcinogenic?
Even Ruckleshaus had to recant his claim after such ridiculous claims proved merit less and remain so to this day. Now, you know as well as I that ANYTHING, from
apples to pickles to coffee can be claimed “possibly cancerous causing” and you, ED, just put that claim out there to scare. YOU HAVE NO PEER REVIEWED STUDY ANYWHERE to PROVE this in even the SMALLEST molecule. But, Ed, people the world over are getting the message that “scare science” is an IDEOLOGY—- not science. When, oh when will you get it? Promulgating this baseless claim are consigning
your “work” to the age of dinosaurian ignorance.
LikeLike
Oh, yes. Ruckleshaus made that very statement. “The ban was political with a small “p”. end of quote. I will not tell you where this one was made and not because I cannot and not because I do not have it. I do it because you need to dig for yourself on this one, Ed. He made MANY conflicting statements in the years following this
BAN DEBACLE. And they were ALL recorded in major news print, save the one above—- at different times of course. Did you know that our dear Ruckleshaus sought contributions for the EDF after his stint at EPA and did so on his own personal stationary? No more “staged arm’s length” then of course. The number ONE question for Ruckleshaus from the ban forward to as late as 1998 New York times, was “Why did you ban DDT?” And his answers conflicted badly with his answers in the years previous.
LikeLike
Kathy fumed:
That’s wholly irrelevant, of course, since DDT was not banned because it’s carcinogenic.
It’s also illegal to grind up birth control pills and spray them on the walls of huts — in that concentration and quantity the solution would be toxic to humans.
But it’s all irrelevant: DDT was banned because of its uncontrollable poisonous effects on wildlife and entire ecosystems. It’s true that it’s carcinogenic, and that’s a good reason to leave it banned. Since 1972 the evidence of carcinogenicity with DDT has increased a dozen times; the claim that DDT is only a weak carcinogen would be significant, had it been banned because of its carcinogenicity.
But it’s irrelevant now.
LikeLike
And yet, you’re the one refusing to deal with, or eve look at the evidence.
I note that the courts ruled there was beaucoups de evidence supporting the sanctions against DDT — on the basis of science alone. You don’t respond, but make false comparisons to Galileo.
Do you know what the flap between Galileo and the church was about, even?
You insist the scientists recant, however. You missed the entire point of the story.
Deadly accurate, yes. DDT is a poison. It needs to be banned, the National Academy of Sciences said in 1970, and the hundred-plus signatories of the Stockholm Convention agreed in 2001.
You can’t be bothered to look at
Saturn through the telescopescientific evidence about DDT, nor malaria, however.Amazing.
But a record you can’t find, or won’t cite, probably because you’ve misunderstood what he really said, or you’ve edited his words to say something other than what he said, and you don’t want to be caught at such manipulations of the data.
Have you ever read the story of Galileo and the Pope?
Ruckelshaus never, never said that the ban on using DDT in agriculture was not based on science. He never claimed it was only a political act — he may have said it was a political solution to a scientific problem, but he never said it was not justified.
And shame on you for trying to make the hero of the Saturday Night Massacre into a petty, conniving liar.
LikeLike
The International Agency of Cancer Research rates DDT as “possibly cancer causing” along with coffee and pickles Ed. According to their charts BIRTH CONTROL PILLS rate much higher than DDT concerning the BIG C!!!! The ban was DEFINITELY POLITICAL. Scientific? Absolutely NOT. You have been extremely misled, and for the peoples of the world now suffering and dying, you are absolutely DANGEROUS.
LikeLike
Look Ed, you remind me of the church elders of olden times who proclaimed Galileo to be wrong! Oh, no, our beliefs are being challenged and we definitely can’t have that!
Why, we would have to rewrite our “bible” because the earth IS the center of the universe and does not revolve around the sun. Know what he said? Look, ok, I will SAY, if it pleases you, that the sun revolves around the earth, but that will not make it so.” I, however, shall not recant, dear Ed. But the day is soon approaching where you indeed will—and perhaps do so willing. Your outdated, antiquated, more to say “obsolete” scientific BELIEFS (which beliefs mean no science AT ALL–just outmoded rhetoric) are the same. Quaint yes, obsolete yes. Accurate?
No way! Dangerous? Absolutely! Even Ruckleshous has admitted that the ban was and I quote
” political with a small “p” end of quote. This dear Ed is a matter of public record.
LikeLike
That’s a complete fabrication. Two different federal appeals courts looked at the ban. Both agreed — summary judgment, both times — that there was ample scientific evidence to back EPA’s action. By law, there must be.
So, you’ve gone from calling the American Cancer Society liars, to calling federal judges liars.
There’s a trend there, but not a good one.
LikeLike
No and you know that is not what I mean. I mean the BAN was completely POLITICAL, not scientific. And lastly, it BEGS the question, dear Ed, WHY ban something that was barely being used in USA
but BEING heavily used for disease control in foreign countries and……….was a godsend of effectiveness? Banning DDT in the US sent an ugly message to foreign countries. Before the ban, the “message” was “here, use DDT. We did and rid ourselves of all sorts of vector borne disease.” The ban, however, sent another “covert” message! And what was the new message? ” WE, the BIG USA have found (which was later proven an “overt” lie) have banned it because—- oooooooh, it MIGHT cause the big C. Run for your lives!” And they did.
They were afraid to use it then! Of course, after they were dying by the droves, they began to use it again! But, oh, wait! Western governments and western foundations began having a “condition” in their agreements to fund.” WE will not fund if you use DDT and this “condition of clause” was either–take your pick here–either written or verbal. WWF, Greenpeace, and all began to beat the drum verbally of the “dirty dozen” in chemicals of which the lowly DDT was top of those charts! And what was that? The POPS Treaty!!! And WWF, Greenpeace, just to name a few, had it all over their websites and I still have copies. They are of course, now scrubbed of that and beginning to claim like “we don’t have a position on those things, but we do support the POPS TREATY.
Next, the western governments began to warn that if DDT were used, we cannot import your fruits and vegetables, because we have banned DDT and don’t want it in our countries! The message? We used it heavily and now that vector borne disease is not a problem here and now that we have erroneously taught the US population to be afraid of DDT so selling US citizens won’t be that difficult…………..well, you can use it if you want but bye bye to many exports for ya, you poor, soon to be even more poor foreigners!
Well, here these many moons later, tell me Ed, WHERE does DDT land on the charts? Where it ALWAYS was with any scientist worth their earnings! Right way up there with the other “mights, maybes and possiblies” called pickles and coffee! Your lack of knowledge concerning today’s science is appalling.
LikeLike
Ah, the old cancer red herring again:
So, you think the American Cancer Society and WHO lie about carcinogenicity — and you expect to be treated as a nice guy?
Look hard at Ruckelshaus’s order: DDT was not banned because it was thought to cause cancer. The evidence was weaker then; we know for certain now that DDT is a carcinogen, fortunately, probably weakly carcinogenic to humans.
But DDT was banned because it kills wildlife indiscriminately. Cancer has nothing to do with it, other than exposing that pro-DDT types will tell any lie, no matter how scurrilous, no matter who they have to impugn, in order to justify their hysteric rants. When the DDT advocates start harping about how DDT doesn’t cause cancer, you know they’ve run out of evidence, and honor.
LikeLike
Kathy said:
But not so effective as DEET, and still deadly to ecosystems, food fish, beneficial insects, bats, birds and cats who keep vermin away from underdeveloped nations.
Why not use DEET? It’s a better repellent, and less toxic.
LikeLike
Hmmm. So, you’re retracting your claim that DDT was denied to foreign users now? Under EPA’s order, 100% of domestic DDT production was shipped overseas — which directly refutes your claims about stopping use in foreign countries.
LikeLike
No, Ed I read your chemical report and what it says is there is not one ALTERNATIVE to DDT. Substitutes? Yes, and all of them are either not as effective or not as safe as DDT. There is no danger to eco-systems. This was debunked years ago along with Carson’s “science”. There seems to be a big “gap” in your timeline along with that of the biology teacher, who was dubbed one of the “three men and a clip-board” on a crusade to damage the reputation of DDT. DDT is safe, effective, and cheap. You say “oh, it MIGHT affect your grandchildren or children” don’t you have anything better than such silly propaganda? The sun will adversely affect you if you stay in it 24/7 too, but we find that silly and not even worth consideration.
Have you NO SHAME? You tout chemical substitutes for DDT and don’t even know
chemistry! THAT was why I asked the question. And likewise, you have NEVER visited endemic areas of malaria in Africa and India. WHEN you DO, you may find all your
talk– without having walked the walk– is as an empty sock puppet.
DDT has NEVER ceased being effective. What has seemed to cease is the allowance of the use of it! DDT is a more effective repellant than it is killer—-that TOO, has been discovered and you seem to be lost in your hippie days, wandering around, sputtering about “in the wild” which you know nothing about. DDT is most effective because it does not WIPE OUT tiny insects, but repels them. There is NO DANGER of a “wipe out” of insects, as if you would study, you would find that insects reproduce SO RAPIDLY
unless encountering the “substitute chemicals” for DDT, that they are simply unstoppable by DDT. Yet, the repellency factor was unknown at the TIME OF THE DDT ban. There is a plethora of information coming to the forefront now on DDT. ALL of it is empowering and common sense. Did you know, dear Ed, that you made my point?
You admitted that they ARE “less long lived” hence way more expensive (so they can’t afford to use them, but what do you care?) they are ALL more “toxic” and only KILL humans and animals AND insects because they DO NOT HAVE a REPPELLENCY factor.
DDT causing cancer? Come on. Again, that has been debunked. Even Ruckleshouse admitted that in one of his “later interviews”. It is listed as a POSSIBLE cause of cancer way up there with pickles and coffee. We have had enough of these “scare tactics” promulgated by your old, outdated, uninformed “science” BELIEFS. IF you are going to even pretend to vilify DDT, get your facts straight. Tell Swasiland, Sri
Lanka that DDT is not effective in vector control. They would, TODAY, laugh you out of their respective countries. The jig is up Ed. Third world countries have been properly informed that at the time Mr. Cooley, et.al., were beating their drums for a ban of DDT, that a FULL 80%, EIGHTY PERCENT of US DOMESTIC DDT PRODUCTION was………..drumroll—-SHIPPED OVERSEAS. (And they are not thrilled with this horrible fact.) And please don’t start with your other OLD and OUTDATED “non-fact” that DDT was not banned for other countries. AT that time, other countries mimicked whatever the big US said. And, the most horrible antic was that the USA banned DDT for possibly causing cancer (which was a lie then and a lie now, but sounded good in the news to give more muscle to the newly formed EPA’s DDT edict) and then said “OH, we didn’t ban it for YOU—–you go right ahead and use this cancer stuff—-OOPS!!!!” This ban was by far the biggest and FIRST MISTAKE OF the EPA and the fallout among
developing countries has been horrendous on their populations. (Of course, with the big population explosion and all—–another myth with its basis in myth—-you can sleep easy with whatever conscience you MIGHT have survived with thusfar.)
LikeLike
Kathy, DDT ceased being effective against many populations of mosquitoes in the 1960s. Today, every mosquito on Earth has several copies of one or both of the alleles that allow them to digest DDT like candy.
So, since you’re too lazy, and too ill-informed about chemistry to read the reports for yourself, I must ask: Do you want chemicals that are both as ineffective as DDT, but as deadly to ecosystems? Or are you looking for chemicals that have only limited effectiveness against some populations? Are you looking for chemicals that cause cancer just as strongly, or weakly, as DDT? Or will non-carcinogenic chemicals work, too?
And finally, of what import is it to you? You don’t plan to fight malaria with it, right? Are you a terrorist looking for poisons, or just being obnoxious?
That document I cited earlier lists 11 other chemicals the World Health Organization uses as alternatives to DDT. Most are less long-lived, some are more toxic and, now, better killers of mosquitoes.
Did you have a point?
LikeLike
Ed, I want YOU to provide the SPECIFIC chemical, not grouping or classification, but the actual name of the SPECIFIC chemical now used as a substitute for DDT which have the SAME toxicity and the SAME effecitveness.
And Ed, if you do not know this and cannot supply me with this information, then you virtually have no qualifications or lack qualifications for writing on the subject of the chemical DDT.
From the chart you referred me to, the CONCLUSION is that there is NO ALTERNATIVE to DDT in terms of effectiveness and safety. There are only LESS effective or toxic “substitutes”.
LikeLike
Nothing has exactly the same toxicity as DDT — all chemicals differ from one another.
Several chemicals are used in Indoor Residual Spraying now; some of the artificial molecules have greater toxicity than DDT, some of them are more dangerous at various stages of the process (storage, use, runoff); pyrethrins are usually the alternatives of choice, though they trigger the same evolutionary response in mosquitoes, and resistance to DDT usually means a fast-track to resistance to pyrethrins.
Here, take a look at this report, for example:
Supplemental Environmental Assessment for President’s Malaria Initiative—Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) for Malaria Control in Liberia using either Lambda-Cyhalothrin, Deltamethrin Bifenthrin, Cyfluthrin, Alpha-cypermethrin or Etofenprox.
In addition to the five chemicals named in the title, it analyzes the pluses and minuses of several chemicals, including DDT, for use in IRS in Liberia. Liberia is considered a poor risk for DDT use partly because of the instability of the government after the recent two decades of civil war — DDT could easily be diverted and used to create great damage to industries, and great health damage. So other alternatives are sought, analyzed, and ultimately used there.
WHO has eleven other pesticides it recommends for use in IRS — see the chart on page 26 of that publication for a list of the dozen chemicals that WHO recommends using in IRS (including DDT).
Pay special attention to the charts that weigh the safety of the various alternatives. DDT can be used safely in IRS, under strict controls; but all the chemicals used are rated high risk at parts or all of the malaria-fighting process.
We can’t beat malaria with insecticides alone. Insecticides offer only temporary relief. Under the WHO “eradication” program, the hope was to knock down mosquitoes for six months to a year, and in that intervening period, cure all the humans infected with malaria. That way, when the mosquito populations came roaring back, there would be no pool of infection left for them to get malaria from, to transport to another victim (after the two-week incubation period).
That’s still the hope. But it requires massive work to improve health care first. Even were DDT so safe as you claim it is, we’d still have to spend the money and effort to improve health care, else malaria would cycle back stronger than ever.
Once again, you’ve asked for information, and I’ve provided it to you from a technical, scientifically sound source. I wish you would try to do that for anything you allege.
LikeLike
Do you know what that is — or can you give us a site that works? http://www.DDT is not a working website, at least, not having anything to do with DDT.
Typical pro-poison stunt — a nonworking citation.
Actually, most of those organizations, including the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace, have no objection to WHO’s use of DDT under the guidlines WHO laid out. You’re accusing them falsely. See for example this letter from Environmental Defense urging the Bush Administration to allow U.S. funds to be used for IRS spraying with DDT (Oops. It was the Bush Administration holding the funds up, not any greenie group — one more error in research by Taylor Rutledge).
The problem is that DDT is a deadly toxin. DDT works its deadly tricks against wildlife regardless the per capita income of the nation.
The problem in fighting malaria is that we need improved health care to beat the disease — quick and accurate diagnosis of the diseases to pick the medicine to treat the human with, the medicine to treat the victim, and a health care delivery system that can follow up to be sure the medicine is delivered.
DDT does not address the human toll of malaria. All it does is temporarily — emphasize that: temporarily — knock down local mosquito populations to reduce the spread of the disease. When the mosquitoes come roaring back, as they always do with DDT, if there is any malaria present to spread, in humans, that malaria will be spread.
I fail to understand why you think poisoning people in Africa is better than treating their diseases. If we eliminate malaria in humans, mosquitoes don’t matter. Mosquitoes cannot spread the disease if there are no human pools of infection for them to draw from.
That’s an old lie you keep repeating, as if you had even bothered to read any of the material I’ve cited for you. You know nothing about malaria, you know nothing about public health systems, you know nothing about mosquito abatement — at least, you’ve shown no knowledge — but you’re certain that if we just poison all the children in Africa with DDT, malaria will magically go away.
Oy.
I’m all for research. You’ve tried to dismiss research for weeks on sites all over the internet. You’ve slandered the scientists who do the research, you’ve called the research results “old junk that has always been known to be wrong.” You’ve insisted the researchers are evil, rich, and hate children. You’ve refused to look at research journals, and you’ve failed to cite a single piece of research supporting anything you say.
You have some gall, some great denial syndrome, and a sequoia in your eye.
I love to seek the truth. But I condemn quackery, and those who seek to sell untruths — like your stuff, and your postings here.
If you have any research to support your claims, please, by all means, bring it forward. Non-working citations, name-calling, and dumb-as-a-post ignorance of medicine, health care, and disease vectors, is not research.
What you are selling is dangerous, especially if people buy it. You ask us to stand by and watch children sicken and die, because you’re sure you can poison them to health. Meanwhile, there is difficult work to do to protect those kids from malaria — and you’re standing in the way.
LikeLike
Finally Ed…
I would you to provide the name or names of ANY chemical that is being used as a “substitute” for DDT where it has the SAME toxicity as DDT. It appears you feel you know everything .. so please provide me with this information. From all I have seen, there are none that can come close to the safety of DDT.
LikeLike
Ed, I would also like you to read this short:
Tonic…or toxin?
Environment aside, health considerations arise, and with them the dilemma that one man’s benefit is another man’s risk. Environmentalists in rich, developed countries gain nothing from DDT, and thus small risks felt at home loom larger than health benefits for the poor tropics. More than 200 environmental groups, including Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the World Wildlife Fund, actively condemn DDT for being “a current source of significant injury to…humans.”6 But five decades of experience with DDT shows that it is highly effective and safe when deployed in house spraying7.
This was taken from http://www.DDT – Balancing Risks on the Backs of the Poor
Ed..you keep repeating old junk that has always been known to be wrong. If you really are so interested in Human Life, why are you so opposed to researching what we are finally able to view? I have seen you write in numerous places .. and you drop your bag of dung and ask others to do your research for you. Try looking at the truth for a change!
LikeLike
I have little hope that the film will ever be shown again.
Ramsammy is not India’s health minister — he’s health minister for the country of Guyana, in South America. He’s also a bit of a nut.
So, you have no sources to point to?
LikeLike
Ed..I do believe you will find the information about DDT not being used in every part of India .. in the film 3 Billion and counting. Also, if you will check out the Health Minister of Inida, you will see his concerns:
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/news/stories/10/22/malaria-cases-rising/
LikeLike
Kathy said:
I can find no evidence that DDT is not in heavy use in all areas of India. What’s your source of information that DDT use is limited?
According to the official history of malaria at the Centers for Disease Control, the corner on malaria was turned in 1939 — malaria was reduced to the point that eradication was just a measure of short time.
1939 is the same year that DDT was discovered to have pesticidal qualities. DDT wasn’t used in the U.S. against mosquitoes until 1946. DDT played a role in the final campaign against malaria, but malaria was eradicated without DDT’s help for the most part. It’s inaccurate to say DDT was the tool of malaria eradication in the U.S. It wasn’t. Public health agencies were beefed up, at the federal and county levels. Malaria diagnoses were made quickly, medical care was provided promptly and completely. Rising incomes, especially in the south, meant people could afford housing with screened windows. Those measures beat malaria.
Not DDT.
India, one of the healthiest economies in the world, runs its own malaria-fighting programs. India uses more DDT than the rest of the world put together — most of it for use against mosquitoes. India isn’t “accepting aid” to use DDT — India manufactures DDT, and they use it heavily in their own program.
Still, malaria hangs on.
Perhaps, just perhaps, DDT is not the magic solution? Don’t let your biases hide the facts from you.
So, since DDT has never been banned in Africa, and since WHO’s policy since 1955 has been to use DDT where it works, you’re saying some mysterious force made Africans stupid so they wouldn’t use DDT to fight malaria and save their children?
I don’t think Africans are stupid. I’ll wager that DDT isn’t them magic bullet you claim it is, and that other factors have frustrated the fight against malaria.
There is no indication anywhere that an absence or shortage of DDT contributed to a rise in malaria in any time. The modest rise in malaria rates and deaths recorded in the 1980s and 1990s was due to the failure of malaria drugs — the parasites developed immunity.
In fact, malaria rates and malaria deaths have continued to fall since the U.S. ban on DDT use in agriculture. DDT use in Africa declined when DDT became ineffective against local populations of mosquitoes, who quickly breed resistance and immunity.
Why do you recommend spraying DDT where it doesn’t work?
Don’t you think that Africans who have children affected by malaria should have the chance to get medical care so their children can grow up, rather than die?
Why do you advocate poisoning Africans, instead of treating malaria?
It’s illegal to ban safe products. You’re making stuff up. DDT is not a safe product at all. It provided great benefits, but acknowledging those great benefits, all scientists who have studied DDT say that it must be phased out, and the sooner the better.
There is no indication from anyone that DDT is safe, nor is there any call from malaria fighters for more DDT than is available or in use now.
Your continued harping for ineffective and dangerous substances frustrates the real work that needs to be done to fight malaria, and save those kids.
Don’t you think those kids should have a chance to live? Why don’t you join the fight against malaria, instead of complaining about fictional conspiracies, and pushing the use of poisons that won’t fix the problem?
Oddly, none of the “facts” at that site are backed by research, nor accurate history reports.
The reason those claims are not taken seriously is that the claims are false.
I’ll blow the whistle on any professional who has taken an oath to perform public service, but does quackery instead. Why do you badmouth professional malaria fighters who invest their lives to fight malaria?
Quacks don’t get special privileges just because they are rich and their clients have money. Rutledge Taylor is no epidemiologist, nor expert in any other part of malaria fighting.
Quacks are as quacks do. He should be ashamed of himself, and he should repent.
That’s false. There is no study or set of studies that exonerate DDT. It was, and it remains, a deadly toxin.
That was its value, that it kills effectively and long. It’s a neurotoxin, long-lived in the wild, and an endocrine disruptor. It’s carcinogenic. It destroys ecosystems. It was never intended to be the day-to-day stuff used to fight malaria.
Quackery threatens us all. It pains me to see anyone suffer through a 102-minute movie, for $10, when they could send that $10 to Nothing But Nets and save a kid’s life, and save 102 minutes for the pursuit of truth, justice and beauty.
Why are you supporting quackery that keeps kids suffering an dying?
There are serious works on malaria that you could read, to get the facts. Recently Sonia Shah published Fever: How malaria has ruled humankind for 500,000 years — were you interested in fighting malaria, you could start there (here’s her recent NY Times op-ed).
Or you could read up on research, in the recent Lancet special on malaria. (You’ll notice that the experts and everyday malaria-fighters don’t ask for more DDT.)
Or you could read about the quack claims that Rutledge Taylor propounds, in Naomi Oreske’s book< Merchants of Doubt. (There’s a whole chapter on the unholy campaign for DDT that you have joined.)
If you won’t join malaria fighting, by at least donating to Nothing But Nets, would you at least stop spreading false claims about malaria, DDT, and the good people who fight malaria?
LikeLike
From what I have seen with India .. the problem of malaria rise is in areas where DDT is NOT being sprayed! Since malaria was eradicated in the united States by use of DDT, why is it so difficult to understand that something foul is being done, to prevent other countries from using it, or they will not receive aide? Sure, they are allowed to use it, but IF they do, they will be strangled in other ways. I say, stop accepting foreign aide, use DDT, build your population and economy and tell those who accept the junk science around DDT to suffer the consequence!
Ed..your children got to view a blue heron, and the parents in Africa got to view their children die! This makes sense to you? Have you ever turned the tables around and wondered how it would be for you if another country banned a product, known to be safe, so that their blue heron could live, and you had to watch your child die?
The FACTS are well presented at http://www.3billionandcounting.com and anyone who refuses to avail themselves to this, and continue to spread what they were conditioned to believe are not taken seriously in my estimation. When you take the time to bad mouth a doctor who used his own money to investigate what he believed to be true .. DDT was harmful, but found out it was safe, and now shares the facts for all to see, I wonder just what it is that threatens you? You say you care about Life, but your actions speak louder than your words!
LikeLike
Bev, India has been using thousands of tons of DDT to eradicate malaria-carrying mosquitoes over the past 30 years, and their malaria rates are up, and death rates may be undercounted.
In fact, the more DDT India uses, the higher the malaria rates go.
What’s up with that? What does Taylor say about rising malaria rates wherever DDT is used?
LikeLike
Thank you Peter for the Excellent article by Dr. Ramsammy! I too have seen the Excellent documentary, 3 Billion and Counting, in which the lies, myths, and cover-ups surrounding the banning of DDT are exposed. Dr. Rutledge found that EPA hearings’ testimony found DDT to be Safe for Humans, Animals, and The Environment, yet was banned anyway. It’s time TO STOP DENYING THE TRUTH and BRING DDT BACK. See more of the indepth look at DDT and malaria: http://www.facebook.com/3billionandcounting
http://www.youtube.com/user/3billionandcounting
DDT is the Safest, Cheapest, and Most Effective way TO ERADICATE BLOODSUCKERS!
LikeLike
Sean thinks Tom Clancy writes documentaries.
LikeLike
That’s a fantastic, and fantastically false claim.
Your imagination is at least as active as those who claim, against science and history, that DDT is magic pixie dust that can only benefit the world.
All the good dope goes to conservatives these days, I hear.
LikeLike
Another incredible uncovering of false accounting or is it? The Enviromental movement, those staunch advocates of depopulation by fair means or foul, mostly foul, have, if their past M.O. is anything to go by, manufactured this story claiming that despite the wide use of DDT in India the death toll has increased to more than 13 times the reported figures proving conclusively that DDT is not working. If their figures to date can be so out of whack how can we belive them when they say it is more than 13 times what they previously thought?. It is another number plucked out of the ether to discredit the use of DDT which has long been proven to be relatively harmless to humans and other wildlife with the exception of Mosquito’s. Many studies have been done and are a matter of record but facts are not what the WHO deal in as the recent scandal relating to their lies about the Swine flu indicates. They are far from truthful in the way they do business. Anything these people say has to be taken with a pinch of salt given that there is no way they can actually substantiate the claims they are making in respect of Malaria related deaths in India or anywhere else in the world.
LikeLike
Hey guys this is an interesting article that came out last week that discusses some of this.
Malaria cases rising
By Stabroek staff
Published – October 22, 2010
-Ramsammy urges review of DDT ban
Health Minister Dr. Leslie Ramsammy says the sector is struggling to sustain reduced levels of malaria incidences in the country and he is calling for a review of global policies on the production and use of DDT indoor spraying.
The health sector is basically out of options, Ramsammy explained, noting that efforts to control malaria have stagnated this year and the recorded cases are climbing. He said malaria reductions were significant between 2004 and 2008—almost 80%—as a result of investment in the use of long-lasting insecticide impregnated bed nets, training for health workers and use of better medicines.
However, Ramsammy noted that there were “significant problems” in containing the spread of malaria within the last year and according to him, DDT residual indoor spraying for malaria prevention and control has been effective in the past, particularly in eliminating malaria from the coast in the 1950s. But DDT was phased out in many countries following the Stockholm Convention and is prohibited for use in malaria treatment with a few exemptions.
Ramsammy noted that manufacturing of DDT has been severely curtailed since the Convention with only a few countries including India and China in production. He said too that while the World Health Organisation (WHO) still endorsed and support DDT for Vector Control, transportation of the insecticide is prohibited.
Ramsammy released a statement on Saturday last pointing to DDT as an effective tool to control mosquito population in countries around the world before the virtual ban. He said it is the most effective and affordable chemical “we have to control malaria,” adding that the global response to the burgeoning malaria rates in the world should allow for DDT residual spraying. “My position is that the benefits in the use of DDT for public health purposes far outweighs the risk for low-level usage of this chemical. Regulations and policies of industrialized countries and international agencies that block financial assistance to countries for the use of DDT for malaria control should be eliminated,” he said.
The Health Minister said that sustained international donor support for vector control activities is not available at this time and he argued that without such support the availability of expensive recommended IRS commodities will remain unreliable and therefore the battle against the malaria vector will remain weak.
He continued that there are many other examples of poor international policies relating to DDT that have contributed to morbidity and mortality of mosquito-borne diseases. He cited Belize, saying that in 2000 that country was threatened by USAID with withdrawal of support if it were to use DDT.
Ramsammy stated that many of the rich countries used DDT to once control vector like mosquitoes and today are the countries in the forefront of the policies to ban the use of DDT in developing countries. “Guyana, like many other poor countries need increase donor funding for not only malaria prevention and control but also for research and with the present non-availability of DDT–either allowing its availability or the international community providing sustained support for alternative control methods,” he stated.
Ramsammy suggested the establishment of a global mechanism for the production and distribution of DDT for prevention and control of malaria, dengue and other mosquito-borne diseases. He argued that the low-level usage for public health purposes will not have any environmental impact. “The removal of DDT from the arsenal of tools we can use against mosquito is not only a foolish policy, but a deadly and impoverishing one,” he declared, adding that the case against DDT as a harmful environmental chemical is weak compared to the fact that millions are dying and hundreds of millions are sick and disabled and becoming impoverished because of mosquito-borne diseases.
He said also that the virtual banning of DDT is a policy that cannot be justified, and as climate change causes a new surge in mosquito population, “we need to use all effective vector control chemicals at our disposal”. Ramsammy said further that the battle against malaria will also benefit from education and awareness, eradication of the vector (mosquito), as well as medically treating the parasite itself.
Since DDT was phased out Pyrethroids have now largely replaced other insecticides as the main IRS insecticide. Ramsammy said that mainly because of their short residual life-cycle and biodegradable property, the pyrethroids have been the preferred insecticide for IRS control of mosquito (vector) population, in preference to DDT.
However, he said the use of the pyrethroids has been limited because of their extremely high cost and the need for greater frequency of application when compared to DDT in the hot, humid conditions of the endemic malarious areas which are also far, isolated and difficult to access. “These areas are the rich, biodiversity areas of the Amazon of Regions #1, 7, 8, 9 and parts of 2 and 10. Also, they are the areas of Guyana’s forest, mineral deposits and vast water resources and the home of the poor, vulnerable indigenous Amerindians,” he added.
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/news/stories/10/22/malaria-cases-rising/
LikeLike
[…] question the count of malaria deaths in India promulgated by the World Health Organization (WHO). You remember, the study suggests the malaria death toll among adults in India may be as high as 200,000 annually, compared to the 15,000 estimated by […]
LikeLike
Sorry for wording things so poorly. That was what I was driving at. There is no profit motive in environmental advocacy. Anymore than there is in advocating for safer workplaces or the WIC program.
There’s a HUGE profit motive for the polluters and their acolytes. And I would include those who preach the gospel of DDT in that mix. Follow the money, as they say. Me & my rhetorical questions! :P~
LikeLike
Illuminate, sure. Enlighten, dunno.
I misread your question the first five times (and maybe Karl did, too). I thought you were looking for a profit motive in DDT advocacy. That’s difficult to discern completely, but easier once you figure out that there are only about three people pushing DDT, and all of them get their money solely from such off-the-wall advocacy. Financing the tiny handful of people who staff the faux-astroturf organization Africa Fighting Malaria, and whatever group Steve Milloy works with, could be done for about $1 million a year. It is a tiny, tiny group of people who push DDT, but they know how to push media buttons, and they have a faithful coterie of duped sycophants to keep the word spreading, without a lot of cash. (Lyndon Larouche is just crazy, but crazy with resources to push crazy ideas — and Larouche is the guy who rescued Gordon Edwards’ fraud claims from complete obscurity. I don’t think Milloy gets money from Larouche.)
There is no one in such a position, opposing DDT.
There is no profit in opposing DDT, really. It’s just the right thing to do. One has to take satisfaction from clean water, clean air, healthy people and healthy ecosystems. Some clever person could figure some way to make a tiny profit, but that’s the problem with all environmental advocacy — it’s cheaper to do the wrong thing, for the short run, most of the time.
No one’s ever gotten rich off of environmental advocacy that I can think of. Some critics would like to claim that Al Gore got rich off of his advocacy to do something to stop global warming, but the reality is he got rich from his work for Apple and Google, on their boards, and for investing wisely.
Much of the best environmental advocacy is done by people who have more money than God, and who can do the right thing just to piss off people doing the wrong thing — Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the late Laurance Rockefeller, Ted Turner, etc.
My kids didn’t have to wait until they were in their 20s and deep into the wilderness to see their first Great Blue Heron. That’s the profit that keeps us going.
LikeLike
@ Jim Stanley
Let me preface this by saying that I think these arguments are total BS, but since you asked:
The DDT fetishists often claim that since DDT is off patent and dirt cheap (excluding external costs), the insecticide companies would prefer to see it become unavailable so that they can instead sell countries their more expensive patented insecticides. This argument defies logic because all of the 11 alternative insecticides recommended by the WHO are also off patent.
The other argument I often see is that environmentalists/lefties/communist sympathizers secretly want African’s die of malaria as a means of population control. As evidence, they often cite ancient quotes from Paul Ehrlich and someone (I forget who) from I think EDF. And maybe these guys did truly believe this, but that doesn’t mean that everyone calling for alternatives to DDT today also does. I sure don’t. Nor have I heard anyone who’s been seriously involved in this debate over the last 20 years express this opinion either.
LikeLike
Ed,
I am trying to divine the profit motive in opposing DDT. (Or in any clean air, water or soil advocacy.) Is there something I am missing?
I can see, as plainly as possible, the profit motive in advocating FOR DDT…and against clean air, water, etc.
Can someone illuminate me?
LikeLike
I’m not the guy making up whole cloth lies about science, medicine, history and law to justify poisoning entire continents. My motives? I’d like to beat malaria.
Facing facts does not “stultify” progress. Facing the truth is necessary to move forward.
What are your motives? Why do you side with the business interests, against providing the programs to beat malaria? Why are you campaigning against the programs that work to reduce and eliminate malaria today? Why is your mind closed to the science, but open to crass lies about people whose work now has reduced malaria deaths to the lowest in history — like Rachel Carson?
LikeLike
You can throw around the expression “tonnes” of DDT in a quote… and you have proved what? You argue against the fact is that DDT can save lives; your arguments are avidly seeking a hopelessness that will satisfy your cravings for the dark side.
Even if India uses the “most” DDT, can you say that the use is widespread and encouraged in the areas where these massive deaths continue? What IS your goal, Mr. Darrell and friends? You argue with all your might for failure! Does a solution, a genuine rescue from malaria-bearing mosquito bites, somehow frighten you? Why do you battle for the “wrongness” of DDT, instead of investing in help to those who suffer? What if you could be giving “aid” by researching the merits of DDT? Has it occurred to you that you could be mistaken? That you contribute to the problem?
The energy you waste in arguing AGAINST DDT could be re-directed. Watch the movie 3 Billion and Counting http://3billionandcounting.com/ and OPEN your CLOSED MIND! You presently seem to prefer being “right” (and tearing down genuine evidence for a tremendous world turnaround in malaria deaths) as opposed to encouraging research that will lead to the end of malaria!
Search your motives, sirs! You relish the failure of a technique that you didn’t think up first. Such behavior stultifies progress.
LikeLike
[…] about the same time I was writing about the Lancet study on potential undercounting of malaria deaths in India, Debora McKenzie at New Scientist pored over the same article (maybe the same Bloomberg News […]
LikeLike
Thanks, Karl! That may be worth a post by itself.
LikeLike
Nice post Ed! Just put some numbers on DDT use in India: According to a report prepared by the secretariat of the Stockholm Convention (and later published in EHP) (here: http://www.pops.int/documents/ddt/Global%20status%20of%20DDT%20SSC%2020Oct08.pdf ), India uses far more DDT than the rest of the world combined. 3188 tonnes out of a worldwide total of 3725 for 2007. If DDT really was a silver bullet for malaria control, surely the country’s malaria burden would be a lot lower.
LikeLike