Official Comment Count: 1,032,696

Deltoid

Tim Lambert's weblog

Search this blog

Search older postings


Profile

Tim Lambert Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.

Deltoid Facebook Group

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Links

Blogroll

Archives of previous Deltoid

16th

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

« Bolt's abuse of science | Main | Hacky Night in Canada »

Tina Rosenberg misleads again

Category: DDT
Posted on: October 6, 2006 2:12 PM, by Tim Lambert

Tina Rosenberg has an extremely misleading article in the New York Times touting DDT as a magic bullet against malaria. The give away in such articles is the way the author never mentions resistance to DDT. Here's the only mention of resistance:

Throughout Africa, until recently, countries were using chloroquine to cure malaria, a medicine that cost pennies, and so could be bought by rural families. But mosquitoes had become resistant to it.

This isn't even correct. The malaria parasite, not mosquitoes, has become resistant to chloroquine.

Rosenberg's failure to mention resistance is particularly misleading because she tells her readers this:

With DDT, malaria cases in Sri Lanka, then called Ceylon, dropped from 2.8 million in 1946 to 17 in 1963.

And then implies that Rachel Carson's book was responsible for ending the use of DDT against malaria in Sri Lanka and other countries. In fact, Sri Lanka stopped using DDT in 1977 because it no longer worked -- the mosquitoes had developed resistance.

Now Rosenberg is not as bad as some of the DDT fetishists who who declare that insecticide-treated nets don't work, because she writes:

The other reason for DDT's demise was donor tightfistedness. DDT has to be sprayed inside houses, an activity that needs to be carried out by governments. In most African countries, this means donors must pay. They balked, and insecticide-treated bednets became bureaucrats' preferred solution. Donors liked the program because it was cheap and sustainable, as consumers would buy the nets -- often at subsidized prices. But it has failed. The nets work -- but even at $5, few can buy them. The most recent data show that only 3 percent of African children sleep under treated nets.

But she somehow fails to draw the obvious conclusion -- the problem was not a refusal to use DDT (which was actually still being used) but the lack of funds to pay for nets or spraying.

Rosenberg's previous article about DDT was also very misleading.

Comments

#1

Who was funding malaria eradication in the past four decades or so? What were the amounts?

Why did the funding drop?

Is it even possible to eradicate malaria in the tropics?

And shame on Ms. Rosenberg and the NYT for shoddy work.

Posted by: Mark Shapiro | October 6, 2006 3:23 PM

#2

Maybe mosquitoes don't like chloroquine as well? Tastes funny? Gives them bad dreams? Rather poor from Tina Rosenberg

Posted by: Nexus 6 [TypeKey Profile Page] | October 6, 2006 7:06 PM

#3

Anyone who does not know the difference between the parasite that causes malaria and the mosquito that acts as the vector for that parasite has no business writing on the subject.

Such idiotic reporting is just par for the course for the NY Times.

They no longer have any standards when it comes to journalists and the editors print whatever fits their fancy.

Witness the kind of crap that they printed (by Judith Miller) in the leadup to the Iraq war.

Posted by: JB | October 6, 2006 8:02 PM

#4

They haven't quite hit bottom yet. Bottom is the articles which state "But in many countries, DDT has become resistant to mosquitos".

Posted by: z | October 7, 2006 11:19 AM

#5

Fact is, 1) The "silent Spring" apocalyptic extrapolation - no more birds because the eggs are weak -, was based on shoddy science: the birds were given a low calcium diet. Duh.

2) There was a blanket DDT ban in Tanzania.

Posted by: Hans Erren | October 9, 2006 9:24 AM

#6

From Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 206, 423 - 435 (2003) "Developing an international consensus on DDT: a balance of environmental protection and disease control" Kathleen R. Walker, Marie D. Ricciardone, Janice Jensen

"Within a few decades DDT's persistence and broad spectrum of toxic activity first seen as great virtues were identified as serious flaws that limited DDT's utility and threatened human health and the environment. The publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962 raised public concern about the environmental damage caused by DDT. Carson based her book on over 15 years of research by wildlife biologists and entomologists (e.g. Cottam and Higgins 1946) that showed mounting evidence of DDT's negative impacts on wildlife. Later research showed both acute effects such as mass bird poisoning (Wurster et al. 1965) and severe chronic effects, most notably eggshell thinning and chick mortality among certain birds of prey such as bald eagles and peregrine falcons and oceanic birds such as brown pelicans (Ratcliffe 1967 Cooke 1973). Users of DDT also discovered serious technical problems. Continuous exposure to the widely applied and long-lasting insecticide stimulated the evolution of resistant pests as early as 1946 (Brooks 1974). DDT also created new pest problems because it tended to kill beneficial as well as pest organisms. This caused populations of previously minor pests to explode to outbreak levels when their natural predators were killed by the persistent chemical (DeBach and Rosen 1991). These technical limitations to DDT as well as the development of new insecticides contributed to a decline in use in the United States well before all agricultural uses were cancelled in 1972 (Hall 1964; USEPA 1975a; Maguire 2000).

"Since 1972, extensive scientific research has improved understanding of the environmental fate of DDT and demonstrated unequivocally its adverse impacts on wildlife (see reviews by WHO 1989; Beyer et al. 1996). Understanding and assessing the risks of DDT to humans and wildlife involves calculating the probability of exposure and the probable effects of such exposure. DDT and the other chemicals addressed by the POPs treaty all exhibit three properties - persistence, bioaccumulation, and tendency for long-range environmental transport - that increase the likelihood of exposure and make it difficult to prevent. When DDT enters the environment as a pesticide application, it may be metabolized into DDE or DDD, but these compounds generally resist further chemical and biological degradation. (Environmental measures of DDT and its metabolites are frequently combined as ΣDDT.) DDT typically shows a half-life of 4 to 12 days in air and 1 to 3 years in soil (Klecka 2000). In cooler climates, DDT residues exhibit soil halflives of 20 to 30 years (ATSDR 2000). Furthermore, DDT may be present far from application sites. Although only slightly volatile, DDT can move long distances, either as a gas or as a solid attached to soil particles. Significant concentrations of ΣDDT have been found far from regions of use, such as in Arctic soils, sediments, air and body tissue of wildlife, particularly marine mammals (Barrie et al. 1992; Muir et al. 1992; Fellin et al. 1996). The processes of bioaccumulation and biomagnification further increase levels of exposure for certain wildlife species and humans by several orders of magnitude. Once DDT enters an animal's body, much of it is transformed into DDE which, like DDT, is highly soluble in fat but only slightly soluble in water. These characteristics cause DDT and DDE to accumulate in fat tissues. As predators high on the food chain eat prey contaminated with DDT, the contaminant body burden is magnified. For example, in their study of a coastal estuary in the eastern United States regularly treated with DDT for mosquito control, Woodwell et al. (1967) found residue levels of ΣDDT in birds to be one million times greater than concentrations in the water. In humans, dietary exposure to DDT in the United States led to typical ΣDDT concentrations in human fatty tissues of nearly 8.0 ppm in 1971 (U.S. EPA 1975b). Although levels have declined in the environment and in humans since 1972, DDT's persistence ensures that exposure will continue for several decades. In 1991, each adult in the United States consumed an average of 0.8 μg of DDT daily (ATSDR 2000).

"Once in the body of a living organism, DDT may exhibit toxic effects. As an insecticide, DDT kills many species of insects, both pests and beneficials, by disrupting sodium channels in nerve cells, although the exact mechanism is not known. DDT is also highly toxic to many aquatic invertebrates as well as fish and amphibians, particularly in juvenile stages (WHO 1989). Through different mechanisms, DDT and DDE exert both acute and chronic harmful effects in certain bird species. As mentioned earlier, one devastating effect is egg-shell thinning, which was a major contributor to severe population declines in sensitive species in the 1950's and 60's (Wiemeyer et al. 1984; Peakall and Fox, 1987; Bowerman et al. 1995). Since the ban, populations of bald eagles and other affected species have demonstrated dramatic recoveries (WWF 1999a). Based on the wealth of scientific data now available, there is a general consensus that DDT and its metabolites are serious hazards to the environment (WHO 1989)."

Posted by: Tim Lambert | October 9, 2006 10:59 AM

#7

Hans:

Well, if you look at the full literature you can see that in fact there are several articles on the topic. The low calicum diet is from a 1969 article by Bitman. If we fast forward ahead to 1975, Lincer did a study on the topic titled "Eggshell-thinning in wild and DDE-dosed American Kestrels". In it he reported the following data:

Dose Level _ Egg shell Thickness

0.3 PPM +2.1%

3.0 PPM -15.1

6.0 PPM -22.8

10.0 PPM -29.2

I am surprised that this is not quoted more often. All you have to do is leave off the last 3 data points and then you can say that DDE / DDT increases eggshell thickness.

Posted by: John Cross | October 9, 2006 11:00 AM

#8

" the birds were given a low calcium diet. Duh."

Clearly, dastardly environmentalists and Rachel Carson (whoisresponsibleformoredeathsthanHitler) ran around removing the calcium from the diets of wild raptors in order to thin their eggshells and generate fake data to implicate DDT in order to causemoredeathsthanHitler in order to pave the way for the campign by the all-powerful and fabulously wealthy climatologist cartel to destroy the economy of the United States.

Posted by: z | October 9, 2006 11:06 AM

#9

John, since you appear to know the literature on egg shell thinning, the thought occurs that the control group in the experiment Hans refers to was also on a low Ca diet.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | October 9, 2006 11:11 AM

#10

Pffff...you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

Posted by: Abe G | October 9, 2006 4:05 PM

#11

Eli, the Bitman paper on eggshell thinning is "Bitman J, Cecil HC, Harris SJ, Gries GF. DDT Induces a Decrease in Eggshell Calcium. Nature. 1969; 224:44-46." I would be very surprised if the control group did not have a low calcium diet since Joel Bitman seems to be a very well respected scientist who has done considerable work on the biological effects of estrogens and endocrine disrupters on all kinds of animals and birds.

Doing a quick Google search in this area resulted in a rather strange finding. Many people have criticized Bitman's work on the eggshell thinning, saying (correctly) that it was carried out using a low calcium diet. They then say that he repeated the work using a normal calcium diet and could not find any differences under these conditions. The strange part is that they quote the following paper which is purported to contain these results: "Cecil HC, Bitman J, Harris SJ. No Effects on Eggshells, If Adequate Calcium is in DDT Diet. Poultry Science. 1971; 50:656-659."

Doing a search of Pubmed using all three of the authors failed to turn up this paper. There was a paper in Poultry Science in 1973 "Cecil, H. C., Bitman, J., Fries, J. F., Harris, S. J. and Lillie, R.J. Changes in egg shell quality and pesticide content of laying hens or pullets fed DDT in high or low calcium diets. Poult Sci. 1973 Mar; 52(2):648-53."

Google Scholar also failed to find this paper.

All the links I found to this 1971 paper listed it as "24" suggesting a single source. Does anyone have access to "Poultry Science" to confirm if this is an actual paper or not. My cynicism is telling me that it is a fictitious paper.

Ian Forrester

Posted by: Ian Forrester | October 9, 2006 7:35 PM

#12

Hans Erren: "Fact is, 1) The "silent Spring" apocalyptic extrapolation - no more birds because the eggs are weak -, was based on shoddy science: the birds were given a low calcium diet. Duh."

Fact is, eggshell thinning due to DDT is well documented in peregrine falcons and other raptors: for example, in studies performed by Tom Cade (formerly with Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology).

The idea that "eggshell thinning in raptors due to DDT is a myth" is itself a myth, perpetuated by the bird "experts" at Junk Science" and elsewhere.

I would also comment that even if studies done on poultry showed no eggshell thinning in poultry due to DDT, that does not necessarily mean such studies are valid for other species like peregrine falcons and bald eagles, which may have very different biochemistry and may react very differently to DDT and its breakdown products (eg DDE).

Posted by: Laurence Jewett | October 9, 2006 8:30 PM

#13

Oh sure, nice try Tim and guys but I think you'll find that in a couple of months time when he's forgotten all about your feeble responses to his eminent contributions to this thread, Hans Erren will still know everything about practically everything and will be able to correct you should you again attempt to spread this "DDT not the most beneficial chemical in history for ecosystems generally" environazi myth. Suckers!

Posted by: frankis | October 9, 2006 8:49 PM

#14

No need to get personal, my source of information was this:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangedebate/message/2739

Bitman's study was so flawed that a court had to order him to repeat the experiment, but this time with the correct amount of calcium in the diet. Then it was proved that DDT fed hen actually produced thicker eggshells! But the paper was rejejctred by Science (its editor had promised Thomas Jukes that he would never publish a paper showing DDt was harmelss.) Bitman's paper had to be published in a second grade journal, Poultry Monthly or something that that...
Page 120 of Silent Spring: Carson explains the lack of young birds by saying: "[T]he reproductive capacity of the birds has been so lowered by some environmental agent that there are now almost no annual additions of young to maintain the race. Exactly this sort of situation has been produced artificially in other birds by various experimenters, notably Dr. James DeWitt of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dr. DeWitt's now classic experiments on the effects of a series of insecticides on quail and pheasants have established the fact that exposure to DDT or related chemicals, even when doing no observable harm to the parent birds, may seriously affect reproduction.... For example, quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched" [emphasis added].
Carson gives no indication of how many might be considered as "few" eggs hatching. Perhaps she thought that her readers would never see the rather obscure journal in which DeWitt's results were published in 1956, the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Otherwise, she surely would not have so badly misrepresented DeWitt's results! The dosage he fed the quail was 100 parts per million in all their food every day, which was roughly 3,000 times the daily DDT intake of humans during the years of the greatest DDT use! The quail did not just hatch a "few" of their eggs, as DeWitt's data clearly reveal (Table 3). As the published data from DeWitt's experiments show, the "controls" (those quail with no DDT) hatched 83.9 percent of their eggs, while the DDT-fed quail hatched 75.7 percent of theirs. I would not call that percent hatch "few," especially when the controls hatched only 83.9 percent of their eggs.

These are the published data from which Carson characterized the guail and pheasants fed DDT by stating falsely:
"... few of the eggs hatched. " The dosage given to the quail was 100 parts per million DDT in all their food every day - about 3,000 times the daily DDT intake of humans during the years of greatest DDT use.

Carson either did not read DeWitt's article, or she deliberately lied about the results of DeWitt's experiments on pheasants, which were published on the same page. The "controls" hatched only 57.4 percent of their eggs, while the DDT-fed pheasants, (dosed with 50 ppm of DDT in all of their food during the entire year) hatched 80.6 percent of theirs. After two weeks, the DDT chicks had 100 percent survival, while the control chicks only had 94.8 percent survival, and after 8 weeks the DDT chicks had 93.3 percent survival while the control chicks only had 89.7 percent survival. It was false reporting such as this that caused so many leading scientists in the United States to take Rachel Carson to task.

Posted by: Hans Erren | October 10, 2006 10:25 AM

#15

Well, Hans, I hope you now realise that your source is not reliable.

Posted by: Tim Lambert | October 10, 2006 11:34 AM

#16

Tim, Tim, Tim.

Tim.

(Can't resist throwing in a Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod™:) TIM, TIM.

Hans is a promulgator of the NewScience, where all you need to do is throw up something on a website and watch the established scientific wisdom crumble. See, the thingy quoted by Hans is perfectly acceptable as a citation in the NewScience.

Get with the times, Tim. That ol' debate-stifling sciency peer-review stuff is so...so...statist.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | October 10, 2006 2:02 PM

#17

Have you sent your complaints to the NYT? I saw that Rosenberg piece and from lurking around here knew it was at best one-sided, but I don't have sufficient command of the facts (hell, the facts will hardly listen to a word I say, let alone obey my orders) to send off an angry email to them about it.

Posted by: Donald Johnson | October 10, 2006 4:12 PM

#18

That's right Tim! And hey, here's a website that DEFINITEVELY proves that the writer of that article, Eduardo Ferreyra, doesn't know what he's talking about. NO ONE can argue with this resource, it's an IRON CLAD refutation: http://badsushi.net/ed.htm

Posted by: matthew | October 11, 2006 12:24 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting. Personal atttacks on other commenters will be disemvowelled.)





Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

Blogs in the Network

Advertisement

Top Five: Most Active

  1. Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better 10.11.2008 · PZ Myers
  2. Everything you need to know about ID 10.11.2008 · PZ Myers
  3. McCain vs. Gore 10.11.2008 · Jason Rosenhouse
  4. Another Blatant Palin Lie 10.11.2008 · Ed Brayton
  5. The executive class supports John McCain 10.11.2008 · Razib

Search All Blogs



image

YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.

SEED issue 1 cover

If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.

First Name:
 Last Name:
Address:
City:
 State:
 Zip Code:
Email:

(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)


Copyright ©2005-2008 ScienceBlogs LLC · Advertise with Seed · Privacy Policy · Terms & Conditions · Contact Us · Home