West Nile virus: No call for DDT

October 8, 2007

DDT-obsessed politicos look for any opportunity to slam scientists and policy makers who urge caution about using the chemical. Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla) unholy campaign against the memory of Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, is only Exhibit A in how the obsession skews public policy now.

In earlier posts I’ve warned that there will be calls for more DDT use, with reports of West Nile virus spreading this season. Winter is coming slowly to the American Midwest, so mosquitoes still crop up carrying the virus. Voodoo science and junk science advocates look for such opportunities to claim that we need to “bring back” DDT, ‘since the claims of harm have been found to be false.’

No public health official, no mosquito abatement official, has asked for DDT to fight West Nile virus, even as the virus infects humans across the nation. Nor has any harm of DDT been refuted (quite the opposite — we now know of more dangers).

One reason, of course, is that DDT is not the pesticide of choice to use against West Nile vector mosquitoes. Mosquito abatement efforts aim at the larvae, where DDT use would be stupid.

A survey of the nation, in places where West Nile is a problem provides a good view of how West Nile virus is fought by public health and mosquito abatement officials. DDT is used in no case.

While you’re at it, take a look at what LeisureGuy has to say about DDT and scaria. Then wander over to Townhall.com, and see what scaria really looks like, in a shameless column from Paul Driessen, the author of the anti-environmentalist screed Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. According to Driessen, it appears that environmentalists have been biting Africans to spread malaria, not mosquitoes. He may exaggerate some.

West Nile virus is a great problem for people in the United States. No health official, mosquito abatement official, or anyone else in a position of responsibility, has called for DDT.

7 Comments | DDT, History, Junk science, Malaria, Public health, Rachel Carson, Voodoo science | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Putting a face on Congressional constipation

October 4, 2007

Tom Coburn.

Is this man fit to bring water to a dying Rachel Carson? Then why do we tolerate his snide remarks and blocking of a bill to honor her memory? Why do we allow him to defend racist murderers by blocking the Emmett Till law?

100 holds? The man has some obsession syndrome. Can he see a doctor?*

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, profile at left, working a crossword puzzle at the hearing on the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, profile at left, working a crossword puzzle at the hearing on the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Perhaps Coburn could blame it all on his crossword addiction. Caught doing a crossword puzzle while presiding over the Senate, he came back to get caught doing a crossword at the nomination hearing for the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in 2005.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Leesburg Tomorrow. And thanks to Atrios for the Coburn photo.

* Yes, of course I know Coburn’s an M.D. That doesn’t make him immune to disorders, and especially it doesn’t mean he should eschew the advice of trained professionals and people who know. It’s time he stop stopping up the Senate.

Leave a Comment » | Civil Rights, Justice, Rachel Carson, U.S. Senate | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Carnival of DDT

October 3, 2007

Information on DDT is scattered clouds of information, lately.  Some of these really should get more comment — but time is quite short for me right now.

Here’s the news:

One more study on DDT and breast cancer.  Stop the presses on this one.  It’s a good study, and it shows a link.  Effect Measure at the Seed Stables has a good post on it.   One of the key differences here is that this study looked for childhood exposure.  Exposure of children to DDT seems to be more damaging than exposure to adults.  This should be especially worrying considering DDT’s daughter products and their ability to mimic estrogen in the wild.

Bill Moyers’ program on PBS looked at the recent campaign against Rachel Carson, and found the campaign ethically challenged.  Moyers takes a more in-depth and gentle view of Carson, from a perspective from the arts.  Solid information, interesting view.

All Africa.com had a news report on the current anti-malaria campaign in Malawi:  “Rescuing children from malaria.”  Real news — it doesn’t call for broadcast spraying of DDT.  (Surprised?)  In fact, it attacks the colleagues of the Rachel Carson critics, the tobacco companies.

A blogger named Aaron Swartz takes on the Rachel Carson critics rather directly:  “Rachel Carson:  Mass Murderer?” 

A recent think piece out of the always-informative Christian Science Monitor:  “Bring back DDT?  Think again.”

Perhaps a minor blip:  Plaintiffs ask damages against chemical companies and others because the DDT dumped next door has decreased the value of their properties.  An Alabama appeals court ruled that plaintiffs may call in experts to testify that DDT dumping decreases property value.  (Maybe Roger Bate would like to buy the property at market value?  All that DDT would mean no mosquitoes forever, right?)

And from the lost-but-now-found archives, a story that demonstrates subtly the bias that Rachel Carson critics have — Roger Bate defending tobacco companies in a 1996 Wall Street Journal opinion piece.  Perhaps one should not be surprised that people who defend tobacco against health regulators and health care education could turn around and argue for DDT and against Rachel Carson.

4 Comments | DDT, Environmental protection, History, Malaria, Politics, Public health, Rachel Carson, Science, War on Science | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Endocrine disruptors, such as DDT

September 27, 2007

The Alien Next Door describes some of the problems of endocrine disruptors released in the wild — like DDT.

Rachel Carson was right. Was she Catholic? Can she be canonized?

Leave a Comment » | DDT, Environmental protection, Rachel Carson | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

West Nile 2007: DDT not needed

September 21, 2007

Kern County, California, is ground zero for West Nile virus trouble in 2007. It’s a still-partly rural area, with many farms, around Bakersfield. California so far this year has more than 200 cases of human infection from West Nile reported, and 115 of those cases are in Kern County. Eight people died from the infections, all of them elderly.

So, were DDT the answer to West Nile virus problems, Kern County would be the first place from which we would expect to hear a plea for DDT.

Not so.

Kern County officials hope they’ve turned a corner. There were only eight new cases reported last week, and officials think that their spraying program may have contributed a lot.

Yes, you read that correctly: The spraying program in Kern County is credited with reducing West Nile virus infections in humans.

Occasional readers of this outlet might well ask: What are they spraying with, if not DDT?

Despite the Snake-oil Salesmen™ claim that the U.S. needs to poison itself with DDT in order to fight West Nile, officials in public health use other substances to fight mosquitoes directly, when there is an outbreak of West Nile virus-related disease in humans, or sometimes just in birds.

[Notice: Original reporting ahead]

The Kern County Department of Public Health Services actively fights West Nile, with public education, help to medical care professionals, and information to decision makers on what steps need to be taken. People at the agency were anxious to talk about their work against West Nile.

What do they use to spray for mosquitoes? Not DDT.

I checked with two other mosquito abatement groups, including Dallas County’s.  They were anxious to talk about their work, though not for attribution without approval of their PR managers, who have so far not returned calls (public relations is impossible when you don’t relate to the public, guys).

Those who do the spraying emphasize that spraying is rather a last resort, and done only after significant research shows it is necessary. Spraying kills more than the mosquitoes, including a lot of creatures that would normally eat the mosquitoes and keep them in check.  So spraying is done only when the mosquitoes seem to have an unnatural tipping of the balance in their favor.

Public health departments set traps for mosquitoes.  These traps are checked regularly, and the mosquitoes are sorted by species.  This is vitally important, because West Nile virus is carried only by certain species of mosquito, and different species require different abatement plans, and different insecticides.

Once sorted by species, the mosquitoes are sampled to see which are carrying pathogens, if any.  In addition, most public health agencies also monitor birds, by reports of bird carcasses (almost always a sign of disease or poisoning), and by captive populations of chickens, whose blood is sampled to see whether viruses are present.

After the species are identified, the viruses are identified, and it is determined that there is virus activity, a decision is made on whether to spray.

For West Nile, the chief vector is a species of Culex.  Culex mosquitoes are generally controlled by larvacides, not spraying for adults.  If spraying for adults is determined necessary, most health departments are using synthetic pyrethroids, synthetic versions of insecticides plants manufacture.  While they are not as environmentally friendly as natural pyrethrins, they are much less dangerous than DDT.

The sprayers I spoke with also made this point:  The old model of DDT spraying of entire neighborhoods is outdated.  “It is not a good use of the product,” as one gently put it.

For West Nile virus control, here’s what you need to tell Henry I. Miller, up in the ivory towers at the Hoover Institute promoting voodoo science:

1.  No one thinks West Nile virus is out of control (but it’s a problem).

2.  Health official thinks current, non-DDT methods of mosquito control are adequate to control for West Nile virus.

3.  Even when spraying is required, DDT is the wrong stuff to use — Culex is generally controlled with a larvacide, and DDT spraying would be much less effective, and much more destructive.

I asked the abatement people if they were concerned about killing birds with spraying, or killing other things that eat mosquitoes.  Basically, they said it’s not their job, but the chemicals they use are much gentler on birds and other mosquito predators than DDT is.  One fellow said about collateral bird deaths:  “I have bigger finch to fry.”

5 Comments | DDT, Environmental protection, Junk science, Rachel Carson, Science, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

DDT damages plants, too?

September 20, 2007

A columnist for The Christian Science Monitor argues that DDT damages plants, too — more reasons not to release it into the wild.

DDT stunts food crops? Plants?  Is that accurate?

Go see:

For the past several years, Jennifer E. Fox at the University of Oregon in Eugene has used test tube experiments to study the subtle way pesticides impede this nitrogen-fixing process. Last June she joined several colleagues to report research with real plants. Their paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that the pesticides block the bacteria recruitment “signal” that legumes emit. “In essence,” Dr. Fox says, “the agrichemicals are cutting the lines of communication between the host plants and symbiotic bacteria.”

This has serious implications for farmers. Heavy use of commercial nitrogen fertilizers is showing diminishing returns in terms of crop yields, while fertilizer runoff contaminates streams, lakes, and even coastal ocean areas. If legumes can’t do their natural fertilizing job, even more artificial fertilizer will be required.

1 Comment | Accuracy, DDT, Environmental protection, Natural history, Natural resources, Rachel Carson, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

DDT snake oil salesmen of the month: August 2007

September 17, 2007

Since my post noting DDT being sold as snake oil, good for any and all ailments, readers have called to my attention to already-existing calls to use DDT to fight West Nile virus, a use that no public health official has asked for, and a use that would be particularly ironic since broadcast spraying of DDT also kills the chief victims of West Nile: Song birds.

So, here’s our list for August 2007:

Snake Oil Salesmen of the Month

Milloy’s winning contribution is particularly brilliant. He notes that there are other pesticides that are effective, but, because they do not continue killing for years uncontrollably, he calls for DDT. It’s a column Dave Barry could not dream up for parody:

West Nile virus has killed seven people in Louisiana this year, two in Mississippi and at least 145 people in six states have been infected. A 12-year-old Wisconsin boy died last week of mosquito-borne encephalitis.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says West Nile virus is in the U.S. to stay. The virus may now be found in 37 states, including every state from Texas to the Atlantic.

CDC Director Julie Gerberding called West Nile virus an “emerging, infectious disease epidemic” that could be spread all the way to the Pacific Coast by birds and mosquitoes.

Louisiana has been monitoring the virus since 2000 and has one of the most active mosquito-control programs in the country — and yet it is the state with the highest death toll.

It’s time to bring back the insecticide DDT.

Currently used pesticides, such as malathion, resmethrin and sumithrin, can be effective in killing mosquitoes but are significantly limited since they don’t persist in the environment after spraying.

This award has to be retroactive — Milloy wrote this in August 2002. Since then, it is still true that no public health official has asked for DDT, and it is also true that the West Nile outbreaks continue to plague birds more than humans. (I regret I did not find this article earlier, to use as an example of the craziness of the advocates.) Tiger mosquitoes don’t change their stripes, Milloy’s piece should remind us.

Miller’s winning entry is notable for the way it completely ignores contrary data, and rather overlooks 35 years of tough work to ameliorate damage from DDT.

In the absence of a vaccine, eliminating the carrier — the mosquito — should be the key to preventing an epidemic. But in 1972, on the basis of data on toxicity to fish and migrating birds (but not to humans), the Environmental Protection Agency banned virtually all uses of DDT, an inexpensive and effective pesticide once widely deployed in the U.S. to kill disease-carrying insects. The effectiveness and relative safety of DDT was underplayed, as was the distinction between the large-scale use of the chemical in agriculture and more limited application for controlling carriers of human disease. There is a world of difference between applying large amounts of it in the environment — as American farmers did before it was banned — and using it carefully and sparingly to fight mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. A basic principle of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison.

Miller fails to note that there is not a world of difference between applying large amounts of DDT on crops and applying large amounts of DDT on swamps, which is what he appears to be advocating.

To control mosquitoes that carry West Nile virus, the pesticide would need to be used extensively — and it should be. DDT should be made available, immediately, for both indoor and outdoor mosquito control in the U.S.; and the government should oppose international strictures on the pesticide.

Miller doesn’t mention that the deadliest, most uncontrollable actions of DDT were in waterways, especially when applied to kill mosquitoes in the past. The poison bio-accumulates as it rises through the food-chain, so that the dose a raptor like a bald eagle, osprey, or brown pelican gets from spraying for mosquitoes is a dose 10 million times more potent than was originally received by the mosquito.

Miller’s piece is highly ironic in its timing, coming about six weeks after the bald eagle was removed from the endangered species list. America has worked for 35 years to get rid of the effects of DDT, whose spraying ended prior to 1972, and we are just now seeing good results that merit celebration — Miller urges that we poison the birds all over again.

I predict West Nile virus will be the chief selling point for the DDT snake oil salesmen during the month of September. With the West Nile season winding down, however, one wonders what disease will crop up next for which the DDT snake oil will be touted as a cure: Rocky Mountain spotted fever? Lyme disease? Diabetes? Heart disease?

Stay tuned.

5 Comments | DDT, Environmental protection, Junk science, Rachel Carson, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

River blindness “curse” lifted

September 17, 2007

Editor’s note: Dr. Vincent Resh of the University of California at Berkeley addressed the distinguished, long-lived Commonwealth Club of San Francisco on August 22, 2007. Below is a column by Resh which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle a few days before the speech, covering much of the same material.

Resh tells the story of a public health victory in Africa against a disease called river blindness. People victimized are made blind by a parasitic worm which lives in the victim’s eyes. I relate it here because Resh tells how the victory is achieved without resorting to the use of destructive DDT, which had been proposed. Note carefully what Resh says about DDT. This is one more chunk of evidence against the broadcast use of DDT, a story in support of the ban on DDT imposed in the U.S. since 1972. Rachel Carson was right.
_____________________

  • Vincent H. Resh has been a professor of entomology at UC Berkeley since 1975. He was the senior environmental adviser for the onchocerciasis control program.

This article appeared on page E – 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle.

 

River blindness ‘curse’ lifted

Vincent H. Resh

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Insect-transmitted diseases typically come to our attention through local news reports of the threat of West Nile virus or of dengue fever in our neighborhoods. The works of the Gates Foundation have made us more aware of malaria, the mosquito-transmitted disease that kills well more than a million people each year. But there are scores of insect-transmitted diseases that affect humans, and the insects responsible for many of them live in water.

River Blindness Cycle, Carter Center - Alberto CuadroClick on thumbnail image for a chart showing the life cycle of river blindness — from the Carter Center, by Alberto Cuadra

DDT and its descendents were initially effective in controlling the water-dwelling vectors of human diseases. However, the effects of these insecticides on environmental health also had significant, indirect effects on human health. The fish in rivers, which are the main protein source for humans in most developing countries, were drastically reduced by these poisons.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment » | DDT, Geography - Physical, Government, Public health, Rachel Carson | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Using snake oil to lubricate jaws

September 15, 2007

Oooh, I missed this one; Instapundit said:

August 20, 2007

SOME KIND WORDS FOR DDT — in the New York Times, no less. “Today, indoor DDT spraying to control malaria in Africa is supported by the World Health Organization; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and the United States Agency for International Development. . . . Even those mosquitoes already resistant to poisoning by DDT are repelled by it.”

The debate over DDT is over. There’s scientific consensus. Anyone who disagrees is a DDT denialist and a mouthpiece for Big Mosquito.

posted at 10:18 AM by Glenn Reynolds

The debate should be over.  There is scientific consensus that DDT is dangerous and the ban on broadcast use was wise, fair, and still necessary.  Reynolds is one of the denialist brigade who keeps trying to paint environmentalists wrong for working for the ban.

Reynolds claim is deceptive in at least three ways:

  1. Omission, failing to note history:  Reynolds fails to note that without the ban on broadcast use of DDT (like crop spraying, or spraying of swamps and rivers), DDT would by now be completely ineffective against mosquitoes.  The ban on crop spraying (broadcast use) has been instrumental in preserving the effectiveness of DDT against malaria.  The debate is over, Reynolds lost, and its time he quit denying it (speaking of denialism).  The ban on DDT spraying in the U.S., following similar bans in Europe, and with similar following bans in other nations, has been a key factor in our current victories against malaria — a key factor for the anti-malaria forces.
  2. Omission, not understanding the science:  Reynolds may not know that DDT was cast against other  pesticides that are known to have very low repellent characteristics.  There are other, much more effective and less toxic, and less expensive, ways to repel mosquitoes.
  3. Failure to state the whole case:  Reynolds, the DDT-advocate in the New York Times,  and the study cited, fail to note that DDT is inadequate to more than a very short-term, partial campaign against malaria-carrying mosquitoes.  Other studies recently published note powerful, long-term reduction in malaria infections by use of mosquito netting; these declines do not require multiple, expensive and logistically difficult sprayings of poison in homes every year.  Perhaps more critically, research now shows that mosquito nets produce malaria reductions in the absence of DDT spraying, and the reductions stick; DDT spraying alone cannot produce either a long-term reduction in malaria (say, longer than a year), nor will the reductions stick, nor will the reductions be as great.  Nets work without DDT; DDT does not work without nets.

Other than that, Reynolds is right:  The debate is over.  Reynolds’ “spray DDT on everything — it works better than snake-oil” argument lost.  It’s time Reynolds stops denying the facts.

1 Comment | Accuracy, DDT, Environmental protection, Health care, Junk science, Malaria, Public health, Rachel Carson, Science, War on Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

DDT as snake oil

September 15, 2007

“It’ll cure what ails ya!”

emergency-dvd-cover-51cea8wqbkl_aa240_.jpg

My first year in college, we spent Saturday nights watching “Emergency!” I don’t recall now whether it was on NBC or ABC, but after we saw it once, we were all hooked, Al, Ben and me.

No, it wasn’t great drama. An hour-long drama about paramedics in Los Angeles probably has a lot of potential — this wasn’t that drama. Jack Webb, of “Dragnet” fame, directed. It had a cast amazing for its “how-did-HE- get-there” quality: Bobby Troup, the jazz pianist and composer of “Route 66″ (” . . . get your kicks on . . .”) played a doctor; his wife, jazz vocalist Julie London, played a nurse. Loved Julie London. Beautiful, but she had all the acting chops of David Janssen (“the man of a thousand faces” of “The Fugitive” fame). Martin Milner was there, too — he actually starred earlier in NBC’s “Route 66” which featured Corvettes, but not Bobby Troupe’s hit song (go figure) — and so was Kevin Tighe and Randolph Mantooth. And Robert Fuller, and Kent McCord. Whew!

For undergraduate college students, the show was a riot. We noticed early on that the script writers were defibrillator happy. Every time the paramedic truck showed up, the first thing off was the defibrillator. Heart attacks seemed to be a big problem in LA at the time — maybe Jack Webb’s own mortality subconsciously sneaking into the scripts — so the defib unit got a lot of use.

But it also came out at all the wrong times. Drowning victim? Defibrillator first, THEN artificial respiration. Poison victim? Defib. Auto accident? Defibrillate the victim, THEN worry about the spurting, arterial bleeding (if it’s spurting, is the defib necessary?). Classic kitten in the tree? Defib the tree, THAT will get that kitten down. Read the rest of this entry »

10 Comments | Accuracy, DDT, Environmental protection, History, Public health, Rachel Carson, Reason, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Rachel Carson and DDT “ban” save millions of lives

August 27, 2007

[This post has been edited to correct links to go to their new URLs, I hope.  Please note in comments any links that don’t work.]

Some are Boojums is back — that’s good news for truth seekers, science error debunkers and historians who care about accuracy.

Masthead photo for Jim Easter's blog, Some Are Boojums

Masthead photo for Jim Easter’s blog, Some Are Boojums

Some are Boojums author Jim Easter guts the anti-Rachel Carson case in his relaunch post.

Pay particular attention to what Jim writes in conclusion:

That’s right. The 1972 DDT ban did nothing to restrict the chemical’s use against malaria, but had the effect of eliminating the single most intense source of selection pressure for insecticide resistance in mosquitoes. As the rest of the world followed suit in restricting agricultural use of DDT, the spread of resistance was slowed dramatically or stopped. By this single action, William Ruckelshaus — and, credit where it’s due, Rachel Carson — may well have saved millions of lives.

Steven Milloy is invited to add that to the DDT FAQ any time it’s convenient.

Particularly notable is Jim’s work to make available the much miscited administrative law ruling by Judge Edmund M. Sweeney. It is now available on-line, so the critics can now provide accurate citations to the decision, if their intent were to inform the public, instead of maligning the truth and misleading the public.

Mr. Easter’s applied history work in this effort is notable. The internet misses much of near-recent history, especially from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Much of today’s political discussion could benefit from information that would be available in libraries, had libraries not suffered from great budget and priorities cuts in the last 20 years. Jim Easter’s contribution to making a more complete record of the history of DDT and the history of the EPA deserves applause.

Save

4 Comments | Accuracy, Biology, Bogus history, Conservation, DDT, Environmental protection, Historic documents, Rachel Carson, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Instapundit supports pollution, but with a smile

August 23, 2007

DDT follows the same path as PCBs in the environment, both persistent organic pollutants. From World Ocean Review: Bioaccumulation of toxins in the marine food chain has long been recognized as a problem. The process illustrated here relates to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a typical environ-mental toxin.

DDT follows the same path as PCBs in the environment, both persistent organic pollutants. This illustration from World Ocean Review: Bioaccumulation of toxins in the marine food chain has long been recognized as a problem. The process illustrated here relates to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a typical environmental toxin.

Instapundit is happy to promote the use of poison:

SOME KIND WORDS FOR DDT — in the New York Times, no less. “Today, indoor DDT spraying to control malaria in Africa is supported by the World Health Organization; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and the United States Agency for International Development. . . . Even those mosquitoes already resistant to poisoning by DDT are repelled by it.”

The debate over DDT is over. There’s scientific consensus. Anyone who disagrees is a DDT denialist and a mouthpiece for Big Mosquito.

posted at 10:18 AM by Glenn Reynolds

No, Glenn, the debate is not over so long as people continue to deny the harmful effects of DDT and act as mouthpieces for Big Poison, Big Garbage, Big Cancer, Big Pollution, voodoo science and Big Stupid.

There is a scientific consensus, but Reynolds misstates it. Scientists agree that DDT kills birds, bats, reptiles and beneficial insects that prey on malaria-bearing mosquitoes, making control of malaria more difficult (among many other harms). Consequently, DDT use under the rules laid down by the U.S. EPA in 1972 make a lot of sense. Those rules are the same as agreed to in the Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty (POPs) — no DDT use in broadcast spraying, especially on crops; DDT use is allowed when necessary to fight disease; alternatives to DDT must be researched and created. The POPs Treaty lists DDT as one of the “Dirty Dozen” persistent pollutants.

POPs are a set of chemicals that are toxic, persist in the environment for long periods of time, and biomagnify as they move up through the food chain. POPs have been linked to adverse effects on human health and animals, such as cancer, damage to the nervous system, reproductive disorders, and disruption of the immune system. Because they circulate globally via the atmosphere, oceans, and other pathways, POPs released in one part of the world can travel to regions far from their source of origin.

Reynolds appears not to have read the treaty, nor even the article he cites, by Donald Roberts, from the odd, industry-funded Africa Fighting Malaria; even the most optimistic DDT fanatics generally nod in the direction of the dangers. Roberts wrote:

It would be a mistake to think we could rely on DDT alone to fight mosquitoes in Africa. Fortunately, research aimed at developing new and better insecticides continues — thanks especially to the work of the international Innovative Vector Control Consortium. Until a suitable alternative is found, however, DDT remains the cheapest and most effective long-term malaria fighter we have.

Africa Fighting Malaria is apoplectically happy to have one study that shows some repellent effects of DDT. As Bug Girl and Deltoid note, AFM urged unreasonable responses from many of us (I got their request, too). The study is encouraging, but it fails to make DDT the panacea Roberts paints it, and the study completely ignores the dangers of DDT, which have not changed a whit.

The best solutions to fighting malaria do not require DDT. Other new studies show that simple mosquito netting is amazingly effective — in Kenya, a switch in policy to give the nets out for free reduced malaria incidence by 44%. Under policies urged by U.S. conservatives, Kenyans had been required to pay for the nets previously. Reducing the cost of the nets left them beyond the means of many poor Kenyans.

Where is Glenn Reynolds’ promotion of non-poisonous and non-polluting, effective means to fight malaria. Why does he only go for the damaging solutions?

Perhaps Glenn Reynolds and Donald Roberts could make a showing of good faith in this case. Since this one study did tend to break their way, perhaps they could show their gratitude by calling on Sen. Tom Coburn to stop acting like a brat throwing a tantrum and remove his holds on the bill that would name a post office in Pennsylvania for Rachel Carson, honoring her work against pollution.  (Coburn cites junk science and voodoo science as his justification — and he’s an M.D.!)
Or, would making a statement against pollution be contrary to their politics?

To the chronically science challenged, DDT is an answer to more ills than you can imagine. We face new infestations of bed bugs — how long before AFM’s editorial ghosts have people urging DDT spraying wholesale to fight bed bugs? West Nile virus continues to plague the U.S., and already articles have appeared calling for broadcast spraying of towns and marshes to fight it, though that would probably be exactly the wrong thing to do.

The fight against ignorance goes on, but some wear ignorance like a badge of honor.

3 Comments | Accuracy, DDT, Environmental protection, Malaria, Politics, Public health, Rachel Carson, Science, Voodoo science | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

DDT poisoning at the Wall Street Journal

August 17, 2007

The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page continues to exhibit signs of hysteria that can only be described as DDT poisoning. DDT has poisoned their view of what to do about malaria. (The article is now available by paid subscription.)

Malaria is a nasty disease that kills more than a million people every year. It is particularly brutal in attacking infants and pregnant women.

Malaria continues to rage because western nations with the resources to fight the disease spent their money on other things in the past 40 years, because the nations most affected lack the governmental adequacy or financial resources and willpower to mount effective campaigns against the disease, but mostly because malaria is a tough disease to fight.

Malaria is spread by several different species of mosquito, some of which have habits or constitutions which make mosquito eradication programs much less effective. Human malaria is really four different parasites, some of which have acquired resistance to the drugs used to fight it. The HIV/AIDS epidemics in tropical nations have not helped matters: What used to be minor cases of malaria now kill thousands who have compromised immune systems because of HIV/AIDS.

Hospitals in far too many nations are overwhelmed with malaria patients, and unable to provide care for many who could be saved. Most of those who die every year could live, with better distribution of health care, and with better prevention.

A few people have been afflicted with what can only be described as a different problem: DDT poisoning. Their views of malaria and what we need to do to fight the disease are poisoned by their anti-science political views. For at least five years there has been a nasty, persistent campaign to impugn “environmentalists” and Rachel Carson, claiming that DDT is the answer to all the world’s malaria woes. Though DDT has been available to fight malaria since 1946, these people complain that bans on spraying crops have discouraged the use of DDT against malaria, fatally.

Below the fold I’ll fisk the short piece from yesterday’s WSJ. It’s difficult to keep ahead of hoaxers, though — today they’ve got another call for DDT use, this time to fight West Nile Virus. Ironically, West Nile is most deadly against several species of bird, some of which are acutely subject to death by DDT.

Read the rest of this entry »

5 Comments | DDT, Environmental protection, Junk science, Rachel Carson, Reason, Voodoo science | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

DDT’s disruption of hormone activities

August 12, 2007

Critics of Rachel Carson and sponsors of the anti-science, anti-environmentalist campaign to bring back DDT as a major killer, frequently misinform in very selective ways. For example, they like to mention DDT’s role in causing human cancers, because, they claim Rachel Carson was dead wrong about that link. Therefore, they say, DDT is a nice chemical and bans should be lifted.

In reality, carcinogenicity played a very small role in banning DDT. DDT was banned because it kills indiscriminately, killing beneficial insects along with the bad, killing untargeted species, like songbirds, along with the insect targets; and DDT was banned because once released into the wild, it is very long-lived, and its ultimate destructive effects cannot be known or controlled — though some harms, such as the devestation of America’s birds of prey, are extremely well documented.

Similarly, the anti-science crowd doesn’t like to talk about the third big area where DDT produces harms: Hormone disruption. In fact, Steven Milloy’s “100 things you should know about DDT” at the site that peddles junk science, JunkScience.com, does not even contain the word “hormone.”

They play down the fact that DDT and its by-products disrupt reproductive processes, and sometimes disrupt and deform reproductive organs, of nearly every animal it touches. They don’t want you to know about the hormonal effects of DDT and its breakdown products.

So, they never mention books like the National Academy of Sciences’ compilation of the harms of such chemicals, Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment.

Milloy will misquote the NAS when NAS mentions slightly the benefits of DDT; Milloy will not quote NAS when they cite the dangers of DDT. So this book on hormonally active agents, which mentions DDT specifically in 16 chapters for a total of 309 times, will never be mentioned in a discussion of DDT’s dangers — unless you bring it up.

Go see what the book says in the Executive Summary. If you debate the anti-Rachel Carson crowd, use this book frequently — they will have no answers.

And, Sen. Tom Coburn, are you listening? Since when do your constituents want you to defend a chemical which will ruin their farm animals, and especially the ducks they want to hunt? It’s time to quit trying to tarnish the memory of Rachel Carson, Sen. Coburn, and let that post office in Pennsylvania be named after her.

2 Comments | DDT, Environmental protection, Politics, Rachel Carson, Science, Voodoo science, War on Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Fisking “Junk Science’s” campaign for DDT: Point #6

August 9, 2007

Another in a continuing series, showing the errors in JunkScience.com’s list of “100 things you should know about DDT.” (No, these are not in order.)

Steven Milloy and the ghost of entomologist J. Gordon Edwards listed this as point six in their list of “100 things you should know about DDT “[did Edwards really have anything to do with the list before he died?]:

6. “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT… In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable.”

[National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy. 1970. The Life Sciences; Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs; The World of Biological Research; Requirements for the Future.]

In contrast to their citation for the Sweeney hearing record, which leads one away from the actual hearing record, for this citation, the publication actually exists, though it is no longer available in print. It’s available on-line, in an easily searchable format. [I urge you to check these sources out for yourself; I won’t jive you, but you should see for yourself how the critics of Rachel Carson and WHO distort the data — I think you’ll be concerned, if not outraged.] The quote, though troubled by the tell-tale ellipses of the science liar, is accurately stated so far as it goes.

The problems? It’s only part of the story as told in that publication.  The National Academy of Science calls for DDT to be replaced in that book; NAS is NOT calling for a rollback of any ban, nor is NAS defending DDT against the claims of harm.  The book documents and agrees with the harms Rachel Carson wrote about eight years earlier.

Cover of the electronic version of Life Sciences, the 1970 book looking to future needs in biology and agriculture.

Cover of the electronic version of Life Sciences, the 1970 book looking to future needs in biology and agriculture.

Milloy (and Edwards, he claims), are trying to make a case that the National Academy of Sciences, one of the more reputable and authoritative groups of distinguished scientists in the world, thinks that DDT is just dandy, in contrast to the views of Rachel Carson and environmentalists (who are always cast as stupid and venal in Milloy’s accounts) who asked that DDT use be reduced to save eagles, robins and other songbirds, fish, and other wildlife, and to keep DDT useful against malaria.

First, there is no way that a ban on DDT could have been responsible for 500 million deaths due to malaria.  Calculate it yourself, the mathematics are simply impossible: At about 1 million deaths per year, if we assume DDT could have prevented all of the deaths (which is not so), and had we assumed usage started in 1939 instead of 1946 (a spot of 7 years and 7 million deaths), we would have 69 million deaths prevented by 2008. As best I can determine, the 500 million death figure is a misreading from an early WHO report that noted about 500 million people are annually exposed to malaria, I’m guessing a bit at that conclusion — that’s the nicest way to attribute it to simple error and not malicious lie. It was 500 million exposures to malaria, not 500 million deaths. It’s unfortunate that this erroneous figure found its way into a publication of the NAS — I suppose it’s the proof that anyone can err.

Read the rest of this entry »

16 Comments | Accuracy, Bogus history, Conservation, DDT, Environmental protection, History, Hoaxes, Junk science, Public health, Rachel Carson, Research, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »