Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Reader James reports that the DDT ban myth is repeated in a new book:
Over the last few decades, however, the WHO has discouraged the use of DDT in member states â encouraged by environmentalists, who have often massively overstated the negative effects of DDT on human and animal health (Roberts et al., 2000). Until recently, most Western aid agencies discouraged the use of DDT and indoor residual spraying generally, and the WHO has provided little financial assistance to those governments that wish to go down this route.
They also run down bednets.
While bednets may have a role in preventing transmission of malaria (Premji et al., 1995; Philips-Howard et al., 2003), they are far from perfect, particularly in the poorest areas where they are most needed but can only be obtained at considerable expense. Mosquitoes tend to be most active in the hottest parts of the year, and few people relish the thought of covering themselves in a net during these hot nights. In certain parts of Africa, people are reluctant to sleep in nets because they resemble a shroud. People also often misuse bednets, with enterprising individuals using them as fishing nets. Even when bednets are used properly they are a far from perfect barrier, not least because mosquitoes, being opportunistic, will take advantage of any occasion when a person happens to get out of bed during the night (Bean, 2001; Choi, 1995).
But bednets work.
The book is put out by the Campaign for Fighting Diseases, a project of the International Policy Network. For some reason, the CfFD believes that the best method for fighting diseases is less government intervention. Except for patents, where more government intervention to protect the intellectual property rights of drug companies is the way to go.
The IPA is launching the book in Australia at two events:
Melbourne
Speaker: Alan Oxley, Chairman of the Australian APEC Study Centre
Date: Monday 18 February, 2008 5.30 to 7.00pm
Venue: The Australian Institute of International Affairs Dyason House 124 Jolimont Road East Melbourne
RSVP: Annette Nicol P: 03 9654 7271 or Annette.nicol AT aiia.asn.au
Sydney
Speaker: Bill Bowtell, Director of HIV/AIDS Project at the Lowy Institute
Date: Thursday 21 February, 2008 5.30 to 7.00pm
Venue: The Australian Institute of International Affairs The Glover Cottages 124 Kent Street Sydney
RSVP: AIIA P: 02 9247 2709 or aiiansw AT bigpond.com
I think I might go to the Sydney one...
Politics
Comments
This Guardian article on Bill and Melinda Gate's work on malaria is interesting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/17/medicalresearch.health
DDT wasn't worthy of a single mention...
Posted by: Dean Morrison | February 17, 2008 12:48 PM
There's a Canadian charity called Spread the Net, which is trying to raise enough money for 500,000 nets. It says $10 buys one net.
http://www.spreadthenet.org/default_en.aspx
Posted by: Holly Stick | February 17, 2008 2:46 PM
Unicef Canada has a report on malaria and children, and about how many millions of nets are in use, etc. They seem to think the nets work.
http://www.unicef.ca/portal/SmartDefault.aspx?at=2129
The chapter summaries of that book definitely suggest an agenda against public health and for Big Pharma. I suppose there's a lot of money in malaria drugs; and maybe they prefer people with recurrant malaria attacks to people with no malaria?
Posted by: Holly Stick | February 17, 2008 3:06 PM
I am relatively new to this blog, so I am not quite sure what you mean by "DDT ban myth."
Do you mean that it is a myth that some countries banned all use of DDT following pressure from environmental groups?
Do you mean that it is a myth that organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have long campaigned for a total ban on DDT? They still seem to be trying to ban the use of "all toxins", but perhaps I have misunderstood them.
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | February 17, 2008 7:38 PM
a campaign for a ddt ban doth not a ban make. nor doth the decision of individual agencies to not use DDT while others freely and happily do so. The "DDT ban" refers to either
1)the US' total ban on DDT, and the vast increase in malaria seen in the US as a result(sarcasm);
2) the actual international ban on using DDT for agricultural use, which without a doubt saved lives by preventing the further evolution of ddt resistant mosquitoes (as conversely, the wide agricultural use of ddt previously caused the deaths of uncountable numbers by weakening the efficacy of ddt. hmm.... the cotton industry is Worse Than Hitler!!);
3) or, most likely the fact that "All Those Silly Native People Really Should Use DDT More Than They Do, As Far As I And Others Who Had No Interest In Malaria Until A Couple Of Years Ago Are Concerned".
Posted by: z | February 17, 2008 7:47 PM
bednets are Not Perfect? My God, I've been wrong all these years. DDT, the Only Perfect Malaria Remedy.
that book sounds positively delightful:
"Chapter 9: The World Health Organisation: a time for reconstitution (pdf: 101 kb)
Richard Wagner
An examination of the WHO's budget for 2006-7 reveals less than half is allocated to communicable diseases, and the majority is spent on issues that are of little concern to the poor such as road safety and obesity. These 'politically correct' activities are seemingly intended to satisfy the political demands of the WHO's funders "
since we all know that obesity and traffic crashes are in fact, not at all dangerous, and in any event we couldn't possibly do anything about them, nor should we try. See also Kellermann, the CDC, and Epidemiological Study of Firearm Deaths Is Unconstitutional And Scientific.
Posted by: z | February 17, 2008 7:51 PM
Do you mean that it is a myth that some countries banned all use of DDT following pressure from environmental groups?
Well, the United States did, and the resurgence of malaria in that country has been just devastating.
Do you mean that it is a myth that organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have long campaigned for a total ban on DDT?
And they've succeeded, too.
Now that we've cleared that up, how about you and the rest of the douse-the-world-in-poisonous-organochlorines crowd tell us what your real agenda is.
Posted by: Ray C. | February 17, 2008 8:58 PM
Hm....road safety wouldn't have an effect on transportation of medicine and medical personnel?
Posted by: gwangung | February 17, 2008 8:59 PM
You might want to check out a recent pro-DDT blog.
Posted by: Benjamin Baxter | February 17, 2008 9:15 PM
If you're checking out the 4 Simpsons blog, note that he brushes off such things as DDT bingo and this blog as having "no substance."
C'mon over to Millard Fillmore's Bathtub (see my address), where we don't ban scientists from discussing stuff that may make us rethink our religious beliefs. Science posts at 4 Simpsons don't stick around. I've got a couple of posts dealing with Steve Forbes' stuff, as quoted by Neil Simpson.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | February 18, 2008 5:35 AM
Thank you to z and Ray C for their answers to my post, but I am still unsure about what is meant by "DDT ban myth".
Has anyone counted how many countries did have a total ban on all use of DDT after the campaigns, and - while in developed countries such as the USA and EU this may not have been followed by a big increase in malaria - did this actually happen in some underdeveloped countries with lots of poor people. Or is that just a myth?
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | February 18, 2008 7:52 AM
The late M. Scott Peck wrote a book called "People of the Lie," noting that one central characteristic of truly evil people was their constant, constant rewriting of the past to conform to how they want it to appear. It sure does show up in politics. The pro-DDT folks, the anti-AGW folks, all think that the more they repeat something, the more likely people will be to believe it. Doesn't matter how often you debunk it, they just wait a while and then say it again.
Goebbels lives. His "Big Lie" technique has been adopted by the right in the US and is thriving.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | February 18, 2008 8:08 AM
I am relatively new to this blog, so I am not quite sure what you mean by "DDT ban myth."
If I understand Tim correctly, he refers to false claims regarding WHO policy. Under "Categories" on the left of the page you will see "DDT", a link to his previous posts on the Rachel-Carson-bashing industry.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | February 18, 2008 8:10 AM
Patrick Hadley asks a useful question, viz.:
I'm not aware of any, and for all their barking I have never seen Bate or the Larouchies cite a country actually enacting a total ban on DDT. Even in the US, public health uses were explicitly exempt. That's not to say it couldn't have happened. Is anyone aware of such a total ban?
Posted by: jre | February 18, 2008 10:33 AM
well, one, reasonable sounding, claim is that DDT use was stopped in some countries because European countries would have then required extensive (and expensive) tests of exported produce to ensure that the DDT hadn't been diverted to agricultural use and left residues. which does happen. but whether that constitutes a part of the "ddt ban" or something not quite, is open to interpretation, seems to me.
Posted by: z | February 18, 2008 1:04 PM
When I asked the original question about what "DDT ban myth" meant I assumed that it could be answered in a simple sentence.
Having spent a little time looking at earlier threads on this site and at other sites it seems that there was a strong campaign back in the 1960s and 1970s to ban totally the use of DDT in all countries. It seems that many countries where malaria was endemic did stop using DDT completely, others, including the USA, continued to use it for public health matters. After DDT was not used against malaria there was in some countries a revival of the incidence of the disease and a big increase in deaths from it.
Many people say, while that other methods are effective against malaria, DDT spraying inside buildings is cheap, easy, safe and effective. The fact that many countries stopped using DDT against malaria without replacing it with bednets or any other effective method does seem to have been responsible for much disease and death.
Am I right in saying that the "green lobby" (e.g Friends of the Earth, WWF, Greenpeace) has campaigned for over 40 years for a total ban on all use of DDT, and that this is still the green position?
Have I fallen for the "DDT ban myth" ? Please tell me if I have got things wrong.
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | February 18, 2008 2:34 PM
Patrick Hadley: Sri Lanka is usually used as a poster child by the pro-DDT lobby. Study of what actually happened in Sri Lanka is very educational, both about DDT/malaria and about the honesty of the pro-DDT lobby.
At no point was anti-malarial use of DDT prevented or inhibited for reasons of environmental concern. It was stopped initially because it was felt to be no longer necessary (and possibly for economic reasons). Subsequently it was stopped because DDT resistance made it ineffective.
Posted by: Nick Barnes | February 18, 2008 2:56 PM
The DDT ban myth is that the concerns of some environmental activists caused some countries to cease spraying DDT for malaria control, resulting in large numbers of casualties. It seems to be entirely a calumny concocted to belabor Rachel Carson and environmentalists in general. It is regarded as a "myth" because:
Posted by: trrll | February 18, 2008 5:01 PM
The mantra of Carson was: "DDT is killing birds". Hence the title Silent Spring
as if DDT could possibly wipe out all birds....
And Tanzania had a blanket DDT ban between and 1992 and 2006.
just the facts please.
Posted by: Hans Erren | February 18, 2008 5:37 PM
Tim - "The IPA is launching the book in Australia at two events:"
This is probably why Jennifer Morohasy has a post describing a lecture by Monkton. In it he apparently said:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002771.html "Monckton then attacks what he calls the murderous 'Precautionary Principle' as an expedience used by environmentalist lobby to push policies that would otherwise be unacceptable. He looks at two previous global scares: one real, and one bogus where the policies were wrong because of the effect of pressure groups.
The first is HIV, where he says the correct policy would have been to isolate cases in order to prevent spread of the disease, but this was regarded as totally unacceptable.
The result: 25 million died, with 40 million infected worldwide. 0.7% infected in the US, 1% is the epidemic threshold. 7.5% infected south of the Sahara.
The second is Malaria, where the 3 letters 'DDT' are absent from IPCC ramblings in its latest report.
Before DDT was 'banned,' there were 50,000 deaths per year from Malaria. After the ban, there were 1,000,000 deaths per year. As a result, excess deaths are put at between 30 and 50 million.
On 15th September 2006, the DDT ban was lifted by WHO. Dr Arata Kochi or WHO said, "Quite often in this field politics comes first and science second. We must take a position based on the science and the data.""
Does the IPA really believe these lies?
Posted by: Ender | February 18, 2008 5:49 PM
And Tanzania had a blanket DDT ban between and 1992 and 2006. .... just the facts please.
in a recent post
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/revisionistmalariahistory.php
Tim linked a report, that speaks of
It was reinitiated in 1966 and was again ceased in 1987 due to lack of funds and appearance of vector resistance to DDT which caused program failure (Ministry of Health, Zanzibar).
so you are speaking only about mainland Tanzania, i guess?
Posted by: sod | February 18, 2008 6:06 PM
Indeed, Tanzania is the federal union (Umoja) of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. I made the maps for the final report of obsolete pesticide inventory for mainland Tanzania in 1998. Zanzibar was done earlier.
Posted by: Hans Erren | February 18, 2008 8:12 PM
Sigh. Justy got home, it apparently rained a lot because my backyard is underwater again. If I decide not to spray it with DDT, does this mean there is a DDT ban? Because I don't want to be part of that.
Posted by: z | February 19, 2008 12:08 AM
Hans.
To quote you at #19, Rachel Carson said "DDT is killing birds". This was true - DDT did kill birds, and it would continue to kill bird species again if it were to accumulate in the food chain as it did last century.
As far as I can determine from her writings Carson did not claim that DDT would "wipe out all birds", as you wrote (my emphasis). This claim of yours is a straw man, and you should know this. The title of Carson's book, whilst certainly populist, nevertheless indicated a biological effect of DDT, although not perhaps properly indicating the most vulnerable avian taxa. However to impute that Carson lied, or was in any other way incorrect that birds died as a consequence of DDT use, through your attempt to twist the theme behind the title, and then to confabulate subsequent policy changes with your imputation of impropriety on Carson's part, well...
I will refrain from my vague and inappropriate ad hominem urges, and instead remind you of your own words:
"just the facts please".
Posted by: Bernard J. | February 19, 2008 12:14 AM
I will refrain from my vague and inappropriate ad hominem urges
Sir, you flout the Internet's most sacred traditions. Take that soap and water out of your mouth at once!
Posted by: Vagueofgodalming | February 19, 2008 4:11 AM
Whether or not Rachel Carson, who died 44 years ago, advocated a total ban of DDT in a book she wrote in 1962, seems less important than what the "green movement" has advocated in the years since her book came out.
Influenced by people such as Carson (but perhaps going rather further than she wanted) organisations such as Friends of the Earth, GreenPeace and WWF have always lobbied for a total ban on all use of DDT including indoor use against malaria. To give Carson all the blame (or credit) for that campaign seems lazy - and if that is part of the "DDT ban myth" then it should be corrected.
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | February 19, 2008 6:54 AM
"...organisations such as Friends of the Earth, GreenPeace and WWF have always lobbied for a total ban on all use of DDT including indoor use against malaria."
So if the supposed ban is in place why is there a need to lobby for it?
Actually the facts seem to be that many environmental organiSations have advocated a ban on the AGRICULTURAL use of DDT and that some of them in the late 90's and early 2000's advocated a total ban (with caveats about it being phased in over time as suitable replacements were found), NMy understanding is that most if not all of those groups have now abandoned that position.
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 19, 2008 7:28 AM
Patrick Hadley@26: you are missing the point. The "DDT ban myth" is that anti-malarial use of DDT has been prevented globally due to pressure from environmental groups. This is simply not the case. It is a lie, made up out of whole cloth in order to smear the environmental movement.
IF it were true that environmental groups had campaigned for an end to anti-malarial use of DDT from the 1950s, and IF it were also true that anti-malarial use of DDT had been stopped globally as a result, and IF it were also true that the global resurgence of malaria since the early 60s was a result of this cessation of DDT use, THEN environmental groups would have a very serious case to answer. As it is, none of these three things is true. Together they form the "DDT ban myth".
Posted by: Nick Barnes | February 19, 2008 8:14 AM
From the NPR website:
If WHO always approved the use of DDT for malaria control, why the need to make a MAJOR policy change?
To say that WHO never banned the use of DDT for malaria control is technically correct. However that's like saying that the federal government never imposed speed limits on highways, they just threatened to withhold all federal highway support money from states that didn't cooperate.
If mosquitoes are all resistant to DDT, why is WHO now encouraging DDT's use?
If European countries threatened to ban import of agricultural products from countries using DDT for malaria control (or put obstacles in the way to make importation more difficult), then saying that "DDT was never banned" is disingenuous as that would effectively ban DDT.
The idea that DDT isn't necessary for malaria control in the U.S., so it isn't necessary for Africa is seriously misguided. The U.S. has air conditioning, fewer pools of standing water and a good public health infrastructure.
It seems to me that environmentalists are trying to avoid responsibility for a mistake and it's not going to be as easy as they'd like. People make mistakes. The correct thing to do is fess up, admit the error, apologize and work to make the situation right. The idea that anyone or any group is always correct is absurd. Admitting when you're wrong also builds credibility. Parsing language to avoid responsibility just makes people suspicious.
Posted by: BillBodell | February 19, 2008 11:32 AM
WHO did not make a major policy change:
Posted by: Tim Lambert | February 19, 2008 12:13 PM
"The idea that DDT isn't necessary for malaria control in the U.S., so it isn't necessary for Africa is seriously misguided. The U.S. has air conditioning, fewer pools of standing water and a good public health infrastructure."
By pointing this out, you are effectively advocating a ban on DDT.
Posted by: z | February 19, 2008 12:55 PM
TRRLL tells us that the argument about the "DDT ban myth" seems to come down to these three points:
1- DDT was never banned as a malaria control.
Bill Bodell has already dealt with this pretty well. The effect of WHO and EU policies were equivalent to a ban on all use of DDT in many poor countries.
2- The decline in the use of DDT was nothing to do with green concerns, but for reasons of economics and resistance.
Since DDT is certainly the cheapest method against malaria it is hard to see how economics came into it, unless it was economic pressure from the EU refusing to take imports from countries which used DDT against malaria. As for resistance the evidence is pretty clear that spraying indoors does not lead to many problems with mosquitos resistant to DDT.
3- Rachel Carson and other environmentalists never called for a ban on DDT for malaria control, indeed Carson actually argued for DDT to be reserved for disease control.
Having just bought a copy of "Silent Spring" I find that, far from suggesting that DDT be reserved for use against disease, many of Carson's examples of the misuse of DDT seem to be when it was applied specificially against disease - whether against lice in Korea, Typhus in Italy or malaria in Greece - and she was dead against it. I cannot find anywhere in the book a suggestion that DDT should be reserved for the fight against disease, but perhaps she said this elsewhere - can anyone find a quote where she actually did say this?
Since Rachel Carson died in 1964 she did not live long enough to see the effect of the restriction in use of DDT against disease on the lives of millions of poor people. It is quite possible that she would have changed her mind. The green lobby had no such excuse - although one welcomes the recent changes in policy of some of them.
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | February 19, 2008 1:28 PM
z,
I would support a ban on DDT in the United States (as long as malaria is not a significant problem).
When all of Africa has has air conditioning, fewer pools of standing water and a good public health infrastructure, I'd support a ban there as well.
Posted by: BillBodell | February 19, 2008 2:10 PM
After reading "Silent Spring" I think that Rachel Carson was a very remarkable woman who contributed a great deal to human good. She was wrong about DDT, since she did not know that spraying indoors was not harmful to humans nor that it could be used without creating a big problem from mosquitos with resistance. I would agree that is unfair to blame her for the actions of others who were later to impose a policy that turned out to be seriously misguided, long after the evidence of this was available to them.
It is interesting to find from an epilogue in a recent edition of "Silent Spring" that she was opposed by the majority of the scientific establishment. As a scientist without a doctorate who had no peer-reviewed publications to her name she was derided by the consensus - and it was only when the public bought her book in great numbers and persuaded JFK to launch a President's Science Advisory Committee investigation that action was taken against the over-use of dangerous chemicals in the environment.
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | February 19, 2008 3:45 PM
Patrick Hadley, you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding. When I write that anti-malarial use of DDT was greatly reduced in the 1960s and 1970s because of resistance, I do not mean something like "because of fears that anti-malarial use of DDT would lead to the development of resistance". I mean "because the mosquitoes had become resistant, so the DDT was ineffective". This is why, for instance, Sri Lanka switched from DDT to Malathion in the 1970s. Not because they were forced to switch by some environmental pressure group. Not because they were encouraged or forced to switch for environmental reasons by organisations such as the WHO or the EU. Not because they thought "better not use DDT in case the mosquitoes develop resistance". They stopped spraying DDT in the 1970s because it was no longer effective because the mosquitoes had developed resistance. I'm giving up on this thread now.
Posted by: Nick Barnes | February 19, 2008 6:14 PM
From Silent Spring:
Posted by: trrll | February 19, 2008 6:45 PM
Even if Nick Barnes will not read this others might.
DDT is now widely used in many poor countries for indoor spraying. The overwhelming evidence in these countries is that it does not cause any ill effects to humans nor do the mosquitos develop resistance. It appears that resistance follows only when it is used for agricultural use. I am not sure why DDT suddenly became ineffective in Sri Lanka - was it being spread over the fields? There seems to be no logical reason why a treatment that is effective and safe when used properly in many countries should suddenly become ineffective in one country.
It seems a little odd to argue that because in Sri Lanka thirty years ago DDT became ineffective, that must prove that it was right for the green lobby to press for a ban on its use for spraying the inside of homes when that method had been shown to save millions of lives.
Incidentally Ian Gould made a logical error in his post. It is quite possible for DDT to be banned in some countries and the green lobby still to be active pressing for the ban to be extended to others. While some organisations have recently changed their position they have been pretty quiet in admitting they were wrong (how can you say sorry to the millions who have died) and Friends of the Earth, for example, still want all use of DDT to be banned.
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | February 19, 2008 6:56 PM
trrll, while Rachel Carson did allow for the possibility that there could be safer insecticides which could be used in some circumstances I cannot find anywhere in "Silent Spring" that she said that DDT could ever be used.
If you read "Silent Spring" you will see in the chapters "Elixirs of Death" and "Rivers of Death" that she believed DDT to be totally unsafe in all circumstances because it caused cancer and blood disorders. Time and again in the book she stresses the danger of all use of DDT - I doubt that she could ever have supported its use in any circumstances. She states that malathion is considered less toxic to humans than DDT, (so perhaps that was the insecticide she was thinking off) but even then talks about its " alleged 'safety' " and spends a page telling us how it could actually become dangerous if combined with other chemicals.
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | February 19, 2008 7:27 PM
"DDT is now widely used in many poor countries for indoor spraying."
Yes, minus the "now" because it's been going on for quite a while, which is good.
"The overwhelming evidence in these countries is that it does not cause any ill effects to humans nor do the mosquitos develop resistance."
Yes, as has been stated by most of the people you think you're fighting against.
"It appears that resistance follows only when it is used for agricultural use."
Yes. Carson's point, no? You know, it almost seems like you're starting to get the point (agricultural use bad, minimal use good) but it sounds like you had to fight your way here and still act like you're making everyone else look like fools.
"I am not sure why DDT suddenly became ineffective in Sri Lanka - was it being spread over the fields?"
Yes.
"There seems to be no logical reason why a treatment that is effective and safe when used properly in many countries should suddenly become ineffective in one country."
Used improperly.
"It seems a little odd to argue that because in Sri Lanka thirty years ago DDT became ineffective, that must prove that it was right for the green lobby to press for a ban on its use for spraying the inside of homes when that method had been shown to save millions of lives."
Who, outside of the world in your brain, has argued that?
Posted by: pough | February 19, 2008 7:33 PM
"I am not sure why DDT suddenly became ineffective in Sri Lanka - was it being spread over the fields?"
indeedy. cotton crop. also, africa. in relatively vast quantities; a single cotton farm typically using more DDt than the entire nation uses for malaria control. that selected for ddt resistance in general in insects, and the persistence of DDT in the environment keeps selecting it. "Thus, in the absence of other dissipation processes, the soil will continue to be a source of atmospheric contamination for a very long time." (Measurement of DDT Fluxes from a Historically Treated Agricultural Soil in Canada http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2006/40/i15/abs/es060216m.html)
Posted by: z | February 19, 2008 9:07 PM
Considering her discussion of resistance being a problem with respect to fighting malaria, it is hard to see how she could be speaking of anything other than DDT. She did believe that insecticides are dangerously toxic, but malaria is also dangerous. So her advice to spray as little as possible sounds like a reasonable balancing of risk.
Posted by: trrll | February 19, 2008 10:12 PM
Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far, can I point out that the DDT ban myth was invented by tobacco lobbyists (Steven Milloy and Roger Bate) http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/05/30/ddt-tobacco-and-the-parallel-universe/ with the objective, among other things, of putting pressure on WHO to stop its antismoking activities. The IPA, which is putting on the current exercise, was long active in tobacco lobbying. Those who bandy about accusations of complicity in murder ought to take a look in the mirror.
Posted by: John Quiggin | February 20, 2008 1:05 AM
Rachel Carson thought DDT caused cancer and never supported its use in any circumstances. Nobody who has read her book could ever imagine that she would. She gives many examples of it being used for indoor spraying against disease and condemns them all. Unless someone can come up with a quote to the contrary I think that it is time to kill the myth that she recommended DDT to be used for indoor spraying against disease.
John Quiggin gives us a nice example of the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well." Thank you for that John, but it does not advance the argument by a single step.
I am grateful to Pough for confirming all my points, some of which I was not sure about.
I think I am now understand that "DDT ban myth" is an attempt to remove the blame for the millions of malaria deaths caused by the anti-DDT movement. After reading more widely I think that it is certainly wrong to lay all the blame on to the green lobby. Others are certainly implicated in stopping a practice which was saving lives - including craven politicians and chemical companies who could make more money out of other products.
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | February 20, 2008 6:36 AM
I think it may be time to stop feeding the troll. Patrick Hadley is apparently just here so that he can repeat "the DDT ban killed millions" over and over again. No matter how many times that lie is refuted, he'll just keep repeating it. So it might be a good idea to stop responding to him altogether. He will respond to anything you post with "the DDT ban killed millions."
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | February 20, 2008 7:11 AM
"Since DDT is certainly the cheapest method against malaria it is hard to see how economics came into it..."
There's nothing "certain" about it.
Per kilo DDT is unquestionably much cheaper - but it takes about ten times as much DDT as Malathion to treat a house. Furthermore, because the volumes required are much higher, a spraying team can typically spray more houses with Malathion than with DDT in a given period.
There's also the question of durability. I n many developing countries people live in houses of mud brick or adobe. They repair and maintain the houses by containing the walls annually with more mud. This tends to bury the DDT and make it ineffective. In these areas, bed-nets which can last 5 or more years may be preferable.
Whether DDT IRS. Malathion or bednets are cheaper in a given situation depends on transport costs, labor costs and the form of traditional housing in the area.
But, of course, discussing those issues is a lot less fun than making up figures for how many millions of people the evil greens have killed.
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 20, 2008 9:03 AM
"Since Rachel Carson died in 1964 she did not live long enough to see the effect of the restriction in use of DDT against disease on the lives of millions of poor people. It is quite possible that she would have changed her mind."
No it isn't because in Silent Spring, Carson distinguished between use of DDT as an agricultural insecticide and a vector control. She explicitly endorsed the use of DDT against malaria and argued for a ban on agricultural use of DDT precisely because she wants to slow the development of DDT-resident insects so that DDT could continue to be used for disease control.
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 20, 2008 9:07 AM
As I seem to have nothing better to do in the wee hours after midnight I arranged the posts in this thread with all of Patrack Hadley's offerings in sequence. An interesting chronology indeed...
He commences by stating that he is new and ignorant of the DDT issue, and in the space 18 hours he repeats the same claimed perplexity twice more. At this point in his befuddlement however he gleans an insight that there is a conspiracy by the "green lobby" (his words AND quotation marks), and he repeats this theme in several of his subsequent posts.
In less than two days he has raced out and bought Rachel Carson's book, read it, (and I assume interpreted it, cross-referenced it with many independent and peer-reviewed critiques, and spent time to contemplate and digest the whole), and is then an expert who can quote left, right and centre on the obvious evils of those who killed millions by withholding the panacea of the century.
Leave alone misreadings of Carson, and the refusal to consider the salient points presented by many on this thread who are years more informed (why would he ask in the first place otherwise?)...
OK, so maybe I didn't leave that alone!
Barton's already called Patrick Hadley on his pattern of behaviour. I will reinforce Barton's observation that the emperor has no clothes, and say...
Patrick Hadley, I too name you 'troll', and suggest that you retreat to the seventh level of hell to dwell with Ba'al Zebûb, before Buffy finds you and has a go at your carcass with her big pokey stakes.
Posted by: Bernard J. | February 20, 2008 10:41 AM
I blame Vagueofgodalming for my last outburst - he dun tol' me to spit out the soap an' water!
;-)
Posted by: Bernard J. | February 20, 2008 10:44 AM
Ian Gould says that Rachel Carson explicitly endorsed the use of DDT against malaria.
To prove that statement all he has to do is find one quote from Rachel Carson containing the words "DDT" and "malaria" in which she advocates the use of the former against the latter.
I can find plenty of passages from Silent Spring where Carson is totally opposed to the use of DDT against disease, but there is no point in listing them since I admit that they would not prove that I am right; just one quote to the contrary would be enough to prove me wrong. It should be relatively easy for Ian Gould to provide the evidence that Carson "explicitly" endorsed the use of DDT.
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | February 20, 2008 1:15 PM
As seen in post #36, Rachel Carson explicitly endorsed the use of ALL pesticides in fighting ALL diseases (provide it could be done in a way that didn't make things worse).
But since she didn't give a paired list ( (disease, pesticide) ) that included (malaria, DDT) the lying troll declares victory.
Hopefully he will now go home.
Posted by: elspi | February 20, 2008 2:00 PM
I declare Patrick Hadley to be Andura Smetacek's spiritual brother, if not actual e-brother emanating from a Monsanto lab.
In any case, ignorage is warranted.
In my case, the [kill] option is activated.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | February 20, 2008 2:06 PM
Ian Gould said that Rachel Carson's support of DDT against malaria was "explicit". To be explicit it would have to contain the words "DDT" and "malaria." It is not me who is being awkward.
Perhaps he meant "implicit". If so then the evidence of all the "anti-DDT even against disease" comments would be relevant to working out what she thought about it. While we can argue about she thought, it ought to be relatively easy to find out what she is on record of having said or written. Did she ever make a comment in an interview or magazine article in support of the use of DDT against malaria?
Ian Gould also said Carson "argued for a ban on agricultural use of DDT precisely because she wants to slow the development of DDT-resident insects so that DDT could continue to be used for disease control"
Maybe she did, but while Carson used many arguments against DDT in agriculture in "Silent Spring", that was certainly not one of them. I wonder if he can find a source in support of that statement.
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | February 20, 2008 2:56 PM
I suppose the only response to the repeated lies is to repost #36 and see how many lies are exposed just in this one quote.
"No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story--the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting. ... What is the measure of this setback? The list of resistant species now includes practically all of the insect groups of medical importance. ... Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes. ... Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity' ..., Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible."
Lies
(1) "argued for a ban on agricultural use of DDT precisely because she wants to slow the development of DDT-resident insects so that DDT could continue to be used for disease control"
which part of:
"Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting. ... What is the measure of this setback? The list of resistant species now includes practically all of the insect groups of medical importance. ... Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes." did you fail to comprehend?
(2) "To be explicit it would have to contain the words "DDT" and "malaria." "
No, to be explicit she would have to have said:
"No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story--the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting. ... What is the measure of this setback? The list of resistant species now includes practically all of the insect groups of medical importance. ... Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes. ... Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity' ..., Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible."
To paraphrase she said that if A is an disease and B is a pesticide which helps prevent A then we should use B in the prevention of A provided we can do this without making thing worse.
If I said "all dogs are mammals", and you say that I didn't say that your golden lab was a mammal, then you're a liar.
What we have established is that Patrick Hadley is a liar. Welcome to the kill file
Posted by: elspi | February 20, 2008 4:16 PM
I assume that most people contributing on this thread have never actually read "Silent Spring" or at any rate do not have a copy to hand. That does perhaps excuse them from the charge that they are deliberately misinterpreting what Rachel Carson said in her book.
The passage quoted in the context of a book condemning totally all use of DDT because it is a carcinogen to humans, which has devastating effects on birds, fish, mammals with no "safe levels" for human exposure is neither explicit nor implicit support for its use against malaria.
Elspi may not read this, but others might recognise the fault in his logic. This is his argument:
Carson said some insecticides can be used (true)
DDT is an insecticide (true)
Therefore Carson said DDT can be used (false conclusion).
The simple truth, which anyone who has read her book will know, is that Carson thought DDT to be a terribly dangerous insecticide that should never be used in any circumstances.
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | February 20, 2008 4:52 PM
"Patrick Hadley, I too name you 'troll', and suggest that you retreat to the seventh level of hell to dwell with Ba'al Zebûb, before Buffy finds you and has a go at your carcass with her big pokey stakes." Er, the 7th circle is for the violent. He belongs in the 8th circle, which is for frauds and liars.
Posted by: Laser Potato | February 20, 2008 5:09 PM
Hi Patrick,
I've been looking for a list of countries where DDT has been explicitly banned for malaria control as a result of the machinations of bloodthirsty, death-worshipping, enviro-weenies. The trouble is I haven't been able to find one. You seem to be an expert so help me find one please, preferably one where millions of people died as a result but any old one will do.
Peter W. Johnson-Woodcock
Posted by: PJ | February 20, 2008 5:18 PM
"I can find plenty of passages from Silent Spring where Carson is totally opposed to the use of DDT against disease, "
Feel free to quote them.
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 21, 2008 1:30 AM
Hi PJ,
It's not easy to figure out the DDT use status; DDT need not be explicitly banned to be banned. For example, a number of countries prohibit DDT importation without prohibiting it's use.
According to the Pesticide Action Network, DDT is banned or restricted (some of these restrictions are quite severe) in 56 countries with 102 countries prohibiting importation. If you follow the link and scroll down to the US listing you'll find that DDT is shown as neither banned nor restricted, with the entry noting simply that DDT is not registered for use. This is technically correct but misleading: DDT is banned for general use and hasn't been used since the 1970s but can be used in the event of a health care emergency. So, effectively, DDT is banned but isn't e