The Rachel Carson is worse than Hitler Pelerin Society

Thank you for bringing my post to broader attention. I need to emphasize however that the remarks I referred to were made during lunch at the society's meeting. They were not a part of an official Mt. Pelerin event, although CEI's president participated there on a panel on environmentalism - with predictable views. So they should not be associated with the Society itself.

Well, as long as we're going to talk real world here; in the real world, DDT intended only for spraying houses to eliminate malaria gets diverted to unregulated spraying of food crops and every damn thing; whereas bednets do not.

"Well, as long as we're going to talk real world here; in the real world, DDT intended only for spraying houses to eliminate malaria gets diverted to unregulated spraying of food crops and every damn thing; whereas bednets do not."

So not only do you green devils want babies to die of malaria, you want them to starve too?

"So not only do you green devils want babies to die of malaria, you want them to starve too?"

If a chemical is being diverted to a use for which it was not intended then it is highly likely it will be used incorrectly - and like any chemical application correct use is essential for effective use.

Your comment is facile - particularly since you suggested that 'green devils' want babies to die of malaria underneath a post that was discussing one of the most effective anti-malarial measures.

Good old Gus. A real authority.

"I have conducted workshops and given presentations on healing, shamanism, and politics at Pagan gatherings and spiritual centers in the United States and Canada"

Grendel Ian Gould is of course parodying.

In Grendel's defense, it's really hard to tell sometimes.

Gus is absolutely right.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is working with the Bush administration to drive this baseless story that calls Carson "worse than Hitler". Rachel Carson never called for the banning of chemicals, only the proper and responsible use. She is on record, including audio interviews, saying just this.

CEI is presently using terms like "junk science" and "does not pass the test of "scientific rigor."" when speaking of Carson's work. This is utter nonsense, and is especially egregious when the so-called Director of Risk and Environmental Policy at CEI has ZERO background to make such statements.

Carson's scientific work was careful and solid. She worked closely with a cadre of scientists when researching Silent Spring. To call her work "junk science" is merely history repeating itself, and these purely political attacks should be treated for what they are worth, bunk from industry hacks.

It's not all about Rachel Carson.
It's not all about the past.
It's proactive, precautionary obfuscation to clear the way for a new marketing push.

Of what? I dunno. Guessing, I'd imagine that the permethrin analogs are about run, having been creating resistance and besides the patents are probably expiring. Their first tier replacements, the neonicotinoids, have a wide range of activity and soil persistence, and are being named as suspects in interfering with honeybee navigation over longterm, and have already been banned in France at the behest of beekeepers.
The next tier replacement are, um, what exactly?

And why shouldn't we worry?

Hank, there's no reason to assume it's tied to a special marketing push. The "wedge document" from Africa Fighting Malaria that was published here, revealed a lot of how they are thinking.

The AFM people were basically saying "Although you have no interest in malaria or DDT, you should fund our campaign, because anything that makes environmentalists look bad is good for you!"

And they are right. People don't want to be seen as fanatics, so it makes many assume faux-balanced positions: "I'm all for responsible action against climate change, but I'd be the first to admit the environmental movement must be watched carefully. Like that Rachel Carson! Did you know she was worse than Hitler?"

If these people are well-informed on the core issue(s) they care about, but systematically misinformed on others, they can do a lot of damage through their respectability. They can indeed drive a wedge in environmentalism, like AFM wants. I could probably mention a couple of scientists I suspect are being used in this fashion...

Their first tier replacements, the neonicotinoids

First time around, I read that as 'neoconoids'.

Here's a testimonial from a satisfied customer, who wished to be known only as W:

"I had that World Bank buzzing in my ears, sucking the blood out of my economy, so I applied Wolfowitz, and within 6 months it was moribund! And in Iraq, they're dying like flies now! It's better than Hitler!"

"... a recent study by scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences found that seafood products in 11 coastal cities in the Pearl River Delta area were heavily contaminated with pesticides, including DDT, which was banned in China in 1983.

"The only region that reports higher levels of DDTs is Egypt," the report said. "This indicates that the coastal region of southern China is probably one of the most DDT-polluted areas in the world."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/business/worldbusiness/03fish.html?pa…

"Your comment is facile"
Yeah, I think that was the point. Although sometimes the only way to discern real pathology from satire is by the badd speling and gramer. And the faint whiff of flying spittle.

I'll agree, the whole Rachel Carson is Hitler thing is retarded. The right/libertarian side is giving themselves a black eye with this bunk.

It looks like you're going to have to add National Geographic to your ever growing list of right wing fanatics who believe that poor science and poor judgement led to banning DDT. In the July '07 issue ( available at http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature1/ ) you can find more attribution that Rachel Carson contributed to to the over-reaction to DDT, which indeed led to millions of addition deaths. In the print edition you can see a very nice graph on page 63 of the increase in malaria incidence in South Africa after ending use of DDT in 1996 (from 20,000 cases to over 60,000 in a couple of years) and the dramtic decline to 10,000 cases in five years once DDT was resumed, together with multidrug therapy including arteminisin.

Of course Rachel Carson was just a lady who wrote a book, so in that sense we cannot blame her for irresponsible actions taken by others.

Sigh.
http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/something-stinks-over-at-nation…

"Well, as long as we're going to talk real world here; in the real world, DDT intended only for spraying houses to eliminate malaria gets diverted to unregulated spraying of food crops and every damn thing; whereas bednets do not."

Yes, anything can be "diverted". So can the ever-so-safe bednets that when used by the villagers to fish with, kills every fish downstream. Just because soething can be diverted, is no reason not to use it if its saving lives.

So using a treated anti-mosquito net for fishing "kills every fish downstream"? Why do I doubt that? Kills some, maybe; hurts the fish's food supply, definitely a possibility; but "kills every fish downstream"? With the relatively small amount of insecticide a treated net has, diluted by water, the idea that it's going to kill any fish doesn't seem all that likely, many fish even less likely, every fish is really unlikely. Show me, Rutledge. Show me.

Mosquito nets, generally a very fine nylon mesh, make terrible fishing nets. Water will pass easily through them, but not nearly so easily as fishing nets. It's highly unlikely that anyone who isn't starving and isn't near a river would divert their life-saving mosquito nets for fishing, when fishing nets are available and more effective. Is there a shortage of fishing nets anywhere in Africa? A shortage of fish, perhaps, but nets? I doubt it.

Any DDT in such a diverted-for-fishing net would pose a problem, yes -- but not nearly such a problem as spraying entire fields to kill insects ineffectively.

Tim, do we have any record of any Bush officials saying anything about DDT -- State, EPA, Agriculture, Bush, or Cheney?

QrazyQat,

What would you like to see? Dead fish or toxicology studies on Deltamethrin... Most long lasting nets are impregnated with. Research your toxicology highly toxic to fish. The dose determines the poison. So in a small stream with many fishing in it deltamethrin WILL kill the fish. Go to Africa and see for yourself. DDT run off from fields will not kill fish.

What would you like to see? Dead fish or toxicology studies on Deltamethrin...

What I would like to see is some reliable source confirming that using a treated net as a fishing net "kills every fish downstream" or anything like it. Sure, the insecticides used are toxic to fish, and when you dump a ton of it into a place like the Sacramento delta you kill a lot of fish (still not all, probably not most, but plenty). But you're claiming that a net, the amount of insecticide remaining in one net, will kill every fish in a stream (I see you're already moving the goalposts to make it a small stream with many people using many nets). I find this unlikely, and I want to see some evidence that it's so, because I don't believe you. I don't believe you because you are unreliable in these matters. For instance, you close this latest comment with the claim that "DDT run off from fields will not kill fish." but this is untrue and has been known to be untrue for decades. For instance, here's an 1967 abstract easy to find online mentioning the problem (this is also an example, not just of your unreliability as a source, but of what kind of evidence you should offer for your "kills every fish downstream" claim):

Pesticides occur in surface water by means of land runoff, accidental and deliberate application, and as components of industrial wastes. They also have been found in well water supplies. The most obvious problem caused is fish kills when pesticide concentrations are high, but evidence indicates that sublethal occurrences are more common.

"Pesticides: A Current Water Quality Problem"
H. P. Nicholson
Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science (1903-), Vol. 70, No. 3 (Autumn, 1967), pp. 39-44
doi:10.2307/3627498

And here's the results of a Google Scholar search with over 1,600 entries and I see most on the first page alone mention fish kills as the result of DDT runoff, contrary to your claim. So what we have here is you making a completely unsupported claim, you making another unsupported, and completely wrong, claim, and me providing support for my position. Let's see, science on one side, your unsupported claims contradicted by science on the other... which side seems more likely to be right? Hmmm...

Hi QrazyQat,

Is that your real name? If not, what is it and what is your background if I may ask? You know mine... Are you a scientist?

Now to the point.

Obviously, it is unlikely that using deltamethrin treated bednets (notice in the original post it was plural, as in bednet(s) and villager(s), not A net or A villager) as fishing nets would "kill every fish down stream" (it was figurative, not literal and not a claim as you say) as the dose determines the poison for all substances. Deltamethrin nets are toxic to fish if placed in a small stream. Surely one knows that if the Deltamethrin nets were placed in the NILE RIVER it probably would kill NO fish. You seem to have missed the point. The point was that just because things can be diverted is no reason not to use them.

However, I will point out your somewhat flawed "scientific" support...

This statement below doesn't prove DDT kills fish as run off whatsoever. If my eyes serve me correctly, it says "pesticides" as in plural as well as industrial waste.

"Pesticides occur in surface water by means of land runoff, accidental and deliberate application, and as components of industrial wastes. They also have been found in well water supplies. The most obvious problem caused is fish kills when pesticide concentrations are high, but evidence indicates that sublethal occurrences are more common."

"Pesticides: A Current Water Quality Problem" H. P. Nicholson Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science (1903-), Vol. 70, No. 3 (Autumn, 1967), pp. 39-44 doi:10.2307/3627498

I cannot access the article, only the abstract. If you want to post the whole article I will happily read it as carefully as you have... This statement and abstract do not prove your point. Actually, far from it.

There probably have not ever been studies using Deltamethrin treated nets in streams for fishing in Africa but it does happen.

As far as your "scholarly google search", I am actually surprised that you did not come up with more than 5000 articles that have the words: "ddt, runoff, kill, and fish" in them. These articles prove absolutely nothing and is a testiment to your pseudscience supported case.

"And here's the results of a Google Scholar search with over 1,600 entries and I see most on the first page alone mention fish kills as the result of DDT runoff, contrary to your claim."

Ahem, are we looking at the same page??? I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe we are not.

If we really look at the first page, we actually see that NONE of them actually say that DDT ALONE killed the fish. They use the terms pesticides (a collective term I think?) organic hydrocarbons (another collective term, yes?) and DDT and endosulfan (highly toxic to fish) or DDT and toxiphene (again, highly toxic to fish) BHC, etc... Do you call this support for your position?

Anyone can do a google search for articles with words in them. So, you really haven't presented any TRUE science to support your claim as you seem to have thought that you had... This is typical collective guilty by association "science".

Sure, if you "dump a ton of it" (DDT) as you say on the bank of a stream and pond (way more likely in a pond as it is a closed ecosystem) just before a big rain or pointing a fire hose toward the stream or pond to wash it into the pond or stream, it probably would kill some or many fish but that is not what I was talking about... but maybe you were.

When DDT was used according to label guidlines and restrictions for agricultural applications it did not kill fish 9at least not that I am aware of) I have read most of the studies. Perhaps you know of one that I missed. Please show me a real one if you do.

After reviewing all the comments I can say that there is much to discuss regarding Rachel Carson and the impact of DDT on the environment and on those peoples who have suffered as a result of not being able to apply this inexpensive and effective product for the general benefit of their societies.
Smug self-righteousness will not defend Carson and her acolytes and will not change the facts or the events that have unfolded since 1972. First of all, Carson did not have the support of the scientific community and her "research" turned out NOT to be solid (someone has been reading comments made by the High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, Al Gore and his views of Carson and her work) but the facts supported continued use then and they support the return of DDT now.
No one has been able to present anything that supports overturning Judge Sweeney's judgment (after seven months of testimony, [Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972) that DDT, when used properly, was completely safe for people and wildlife.
We act as if this wasn't completely investigated by competent scientists who actually reviewed Carson's work. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is unfortunate is that this review didn't occur before it appeared in the New Yorker magazine instead of being presented to a reliable scientific journal for peer review before publication. Millions of lives would have been saved.
This system for hysteria proved so effective that it has been used by activists ever since. As Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D. notes that there are seven steps to this process and usually follow this pattern, first by Carson and her acolytes and by activists today.
1. Create a "scientific" study that predicts a public health disaster
2. Release the study to the media, before scientists can review it
3. Generate an intense emotional public reaction
4. Develop a government-enforced solution
5. Intimidate Congress into passing it into law
6. Coerce manufacturers to stop making the product
7. Bully users to replace it, or obliterate it

The fact that traces of DDT may have been in water ways when fish died is attempting to prove correlation is causation when in reality correlation is only one step in proving causation. Carson was initially motivated to start her investigation as a result of a large bird kill after an application of DDT. It turned out that DDT was mixed inappropriately with fuel oil, which was deadly to these birds, not DDT. The facts show that DDT use saves lives. The numbers are so huge that they cannot be disputed in before and after scenarios.
DDT doesn't cause cancer. The epidemic Carson predicted never came about. The bird kill she predicted never came about. During the peak DDT years the overall bird population increased up to 12 times (the robins she predicted would disappear increased by 12 times also) and ornithologists, people who actually count the birds, which Carson apparently didn't do, noted that fact. After that Carson made the "facts" meet the philosophy, including the deliberate misrepresentation of findings of one study.
As for bed netting, even when available, it simply hasn't worked.
What is most disturbing is the idea that we in the developed world, who used DDT to rid ourselves of this plague, are deciding what people in countries where the death toll is staggering what they have the right to do to save their population. Let us not forget that people are dying unnecessarily. People in many of these countries have had many members of their families become these statistics we bounce around, but these are real people suffering terribly. Let us stop this nonsense. If we in the western world had a fraction of this number die of malaria this discussion would not be occurring. DDT would be back. I do have one question. Why don't these activists, who constantly claim that the developed world is destroying the environment, move to these countries where the benefits of development aren't available? By their reckoning these countries should be paradise and the absolutely best place in the world to raise their children. Don't you think?

You seem to have missed the point

The point was you made some claims without any support for them, and when asked for support instead of providing some you started backpedalling so fast you're leaving a wake. I suspect this is because you couldn't find any support for your nonsensical claims. Feel free to prove me wrong.

And look at your further nonsense points made durting your backpedalling:

When DDT was used according to label guidlines and restrictions for agricultural applications...

This is really particularly funny since your main point (which was, by itself, accurate) is that "Yes, anything can be "diverted"". This is apparently only a valid point when used against your opponents' position, not your own. Very dishonest of you.

And this one: "DDT run off from fields will not kill fish." becomes the idea that in order to show this is untrue, one must show that "DDT ALONE killed the fish", which in a natural world situation is impossible of course; there are always other things about. Again, very dishonest of you.

But then what else can one expect from a denier.

Shorter R. Kozlovich:

"Facts are not true, history didn't happen."

QrazyQat,

You obviously cannot read or you are running and hiding and I will not let you go... I will repeat my question and give you another chance. If you do not address the question this time, I will know you are running and have something to hide.

Is that your real name? If not, what is it and what is your background???? You know mine... Are you a scientist???? I tend to think not based on your "scietific support".

So now you are saying I made claim(s). Before (check your post) you said claim. Now you say claim(s). You are very slippery my friend. Who is it that is backpeddling and widening goal posts??

You obviouly did not READ my post. Let me put this on a separate line so you can read it.

I did not make a claim.

I did no back pedaling.

DDT when use on crops the way it is set out to be used will not cause fish kills due to run off that has EVER been proven. Your support is BUNK and I have DEBUNKED it. Can you provide any that cant be? Until you can provide evidence that DDT (yes DDT alone) run off from agricultural applications kills fish you are expousing psuedoscience.

"And this one: "DDT run off from fields will not kill fish." becomes the idea that in order to show this is untrue, one must show that "DDT ALONE killed the fish", which in a natural world situation is impossible of course; there are always other things about."

If you were a real scientist you would know that until you prove DDT ALONE causes what you claim then and only then is it science and not theory. But, I do understand that a "believer" cannot see this...

Nice switch by Rutledge- upon being challenged about his statement regarding bed nets killing fish, he ignores all requests for evidence, then rants on at Qrazy Qat when he asks for some.

If you were a real scientist you would know that until you prove DDT ALONE causes what you claim then and only then is it science and not theory.

Because QrazyQat, surely if you were a scientist you'd know compounds NEVER combine with other compounds or elements, you silly person.

The Google: still without a 'wisdom' button. And not coming soon to a browser near you.

Best,

D

"he ignores all requests for evidence"

guthrie,

Please read the 3rd and 9th paragraphs of post #22.

Nope, your going to have to spell it out for me.
You said:
" So can the ever-so-safe bednets that when used by the villagers to fish with, kills every fish downstream."

But have not provided any evidence to suggest that this can occur. Your first question is, what chemical is used on bed nets. Then, you have to find studies showing that this has effects upon fish, then ideally you could find a news report saying how someone has been misusing bed nets or spilt them into the river, thus causing the deaths of lots of fish.

Yes, QrazyQat is my real name... come on, are you that stupid, really? I'll assume I know your name, but actually I have no idea whether that's your actual name, nor do I care. I care only that you provide some backup for your claim(s).

And you say: I did not make a claim.

As Guthrie points out (and I did before as well) you did. Stop lying about it... for a start. Then back it up instead of back pedalling. Yeah, I know,you "did no back pedaling. Sure.

And please, nothing again so stupid as this: "And this one: "DDT run off from fields will not kill fish." becomes the idea that in order to show this is untrue, one must show that "DDT ALONE killed the fish", which in a natural world situation is impossible of course; there are always other things about." With that you make the absurd claim that one can never ever tell that anything whatever is harmful to anything in the natural world, because there are always more than one thing involved... even a medical study can't do it because a body, the body of any animal or plant, has "other things about".

So still waiting for your evidence, and hoping you'll stop doing such stupid arguments. (Sorry for the near ad hominem, but since it's an accurate description of what you've written and the method you've used, it isn't actually one; it you wish to not be insulted by what are accurate descriptions of what you've written and the method you've used, I'd suggest you start using non-stupid, accurate claims which can be backed up with facts.

Yes guthrie,

http://www.malariajournal.com/content/5/1/37

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/faq.aspx#why%20not%20insecticide%20nets

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/where_we_work/sudan/bednet.htm

http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/articles.php?articles_id=407

http://www.railriders.com/interview-fighting-malaria-with-bednets-a-44…

http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2006/06/08/us_funded_p…

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/books/review/19postrel.html?ex=130042…

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1513388

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WP8-4CWBKKF-…

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&id=8IM_A0aTM6UC&oi=fnd…

QrazyQat,

I am apparently being reviewed and censored. If I am being censored, I will not be able to respond to you.

Nice of Rutledge to leave a post to tell me he is unable to post.

"...the facts supported continued use then and they support the return of DDT now."

Considerng that DDT has been used continuously since the 1950;s and that there are no barriers to expanded use where national governments decide it's appropriate, maybe the facts should have a nice cup of tea and a lie-down.

Why is it that with rare exceptions like Jeff Harvey and Valuethinker there appears to be a near-perfect inverse correlation between post-length and post-content?

"...we in the developed world, who used DDT to rid ourselves of this plague..."

Malaria was eliminated in most of Europe in the 1930's, before the first insecticidal use of DDT.

In the US, by the early 1940's (also before the first insecticidal use of DDT), malaria had been eliminated from the Great Lake states and Ohio valley. It was still present in the lower Mississippi valley and the Rio Grande valley. Without the use of DDT, it is likely malaria would still have been eliminated from those areas.

"Your support is BUNK and I have DEBUNKED it."

Only in the eyes of others who share your ignorance of the difference between a Google Scholar search and as you put it a "scholarly Google search".

Why don't you try googling it?

Guthire: "Your first question is, what chemical is used on bed nets. Then, you have to find studies showing that this has effects upon fish,..."

But Guthrie it's totally unscientific to assume that the mere presence of the insecticide caused the fish to die.

Just like its totally unscientific to assume that the sole presence of the bullets from my client's gun caused the victim to die.

I am not sure from what source you derived your information regarding the eradication of malaria in Europe, but this site states that ".......malaria was officially declared eradicated from Europe in 1975......." and then goes on to discuss how it is possible for the problem to arise again. http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1603%2F0022…

This site claims that Italy had a serious problem until 1947 and DDT eliminated the malaria problem. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0GVK/is_6_7/ai_80951223
It states, "At the end of World War II, malaria was still present in vast areas of Italy, mainly in the central and southern regions and major islands and along northeastern coastal areas, with offshoots of hypoendemicity in the Pianura Padana (1). The three vectors were Anopheles labranchiae Falleroni and An. sacharovi Favre, both belonging to the so-called maculipennis complex, and An. superpictus Grassi (2). An. labranchiae was the principal vector in the central and southern coastal areas, Sicily, and Sardinia. In the two islands, the species was found as high as 1,000 meters above sea level. An. sacharovi was present along much of the coastal area and in Sardinia, but was most important as vector in the plains of the northeastern Adriatic coast, where An. labranchiae was absent. An. superpictus was considered a secondary vector in central and southern Italy and Sicily. In some interior areas of the Pianura Padana, where none of the three vectors was present, low levels of endemicity were probably maintained by other species belonging to the macu-lipennis complex. A malaria eradication campaign launched in 1947 led to interruption of transmission of Plasmodium falciparum malaria throughout Italy within 1 year (3). Indoor treatment with DDT........"

You are quite right that in saying that the problem lasted in the southern United States versus the northern part of the country, as the map chart in this Center for Disease Control site shows, but this site also states that, "Malaria has been endemic in the US until the late 1940's. Most of the transmission occurred in the southeastern states. (From this derives the fact that CDC, originally derived from malaria control operations, is located in Atlanta, Georgia)." Control efforts conducted by the state and local health departments, supported by the federal government, resulted in the disease being eradicated by 1949. Such measures included drainage, removal of mosquito breeding sites, and spraying (occasionally from aircrafts) of insecticides. http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/history/eradication_us.htm
The insecticide of choice during that time was DDT. There is no evidence that without DDT or some other insecticidal products that malaria would have been eliminated in the U.S. Draining swamps and lowland areas works wonders in temperate areas, especially when medication that works is introduced as it was in Germany in pre DDT days, yet pesticide applications were necessary and in warmer climes extensive pesticide applications are necessary. I would also like to address the continuous use point you made...although there is a provision in international treaties that allows countries to use DDT in emergency situations, in reality there are and were so many pressures on these poor countries by wealthy countries and environmentalists it became extremely difficult to use DDT. This site discusses this issue along with other DDT and malaria issues. http://www.malaria.org/ddtlancet.html
One issue that needs to be addressed is the inappropriate ban of DDT by EPA. The administrative judge who heard the case stated in "An Environmental Protection Agency hearing as long ago as 1972 concluded that "DDT is not carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to man" and that "these uses of DDT [to fight malaria] do not have a deleterious effect on fish, birds, wildlife, or estuarine organisms." EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus stated two years later that he made his decision to ban DDT based on political considerations, not science.
Although there are those who keep declaring that DDT was ineffective, here's what the National Academy of Sciences had to say about the chemical as late as 1970: "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. ... In a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable."

"I am not sure from what source you derived your information regarding the eradication of malaria in Europe, but this site states that ".......malaria was officially declared eradicated from Europe in 1975......." and then goes on to discuss how it is possible for the problem to arise again."

Note the word "most" in my previous post.

"There is no evidence that without DDT or some other insecticidal products that malaria would have been eliminated in the U.S."

"...or some other insecticidal product..." are the key words here.

DDT is not a unique magic bullet. There are other inscticides which are equally or more effective and cost-effective.

I'm still amused by the idea of fishing with a bednet. It seems that it would be a most inefficient way of catching fish, inasmuch as a fishing net has to be strong enough to hold many fish, and the mesh must be of a size so that undersize fish and other small creatures don't get caught up in the catch. So someone is going to use a bednet which has a mesh small enough to catch...a mosquito? Not to mention the strength of bednet material against tearing, which I assume is not tremendous.

DDT was the magic bullet at that time and based on the amount of lives saved by DDT use it still remains the greatest chemical pesticide of all history. While resistance was developing in insects the later years of DDT use, it still retains the ability to confuse mosquitoes as they enter a structure. This causes them to stop flying around in an attempt to find a blood source and land on some surface and remain there, "much like a drunk hanging onto a light pole", this and its ability to repel mosquitoes along with the lack of expense in manufacture of this product makes it a superior product even today. This does not preclude the need for other insecticidal products, since a system of rotation is what brings the most effective result. Bed netting has its place in the war against malaria also, but the issue here is whether or not the ban was appropriate and whether or not the ban on DDT should be lifted.
I would like to continue the discussion regarding costs. In February of 1970 President Nixon made a speech saying that they had taken steps to eliminate DDT. At that time there was a great deal of speculation as to whom he was trying to appease. One group thought he was appealing to his green constituency in California and others felt he was trying to appeal to chemical companies who wanted to get rid of DDT in order to sell more expensive pesticides. Then there are those who think he was playing both sides to his benefit. The statement in an earlier post "Rachel Carson has never been forgiven by the chemical industry or the right wing for her efforts to educate the public on the downside of trying to solve pest problems with DDT" plays into this account. For those companies who lost out in the ban this is true, but for those who gained this statement is false. As in so many things in life, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Within the last two years the head of Bayer Corp. a manufacturer of insecticides stated he was opposed to lifting the ban because it would impact Bayer's bottom line. Products which are also showing resistance I might add. You have noted that "DDT is not a unique magic bullet. There are other insecticides which are equally or more effective and cost-effective.", so I commend your willingness to recognize the need for such life saving products. If there are effective, inexpensive insecticidal products out there I say, good use them, like you, I am for saving lives, but that does not preclude the need to remove the ban on DDT as it is a product that is still needed. DDT saves lives.

preclude the need to remove the ban on DDT as it is a product that is still needed

Don't you have to actually have a ban before you can "remove a ban? The fact that you either don't know DDT is not banned for use as an anti-malaria agent or do know and are deliberately misrepresenting this indiactes that your "facts" are non too factual. That's always kinda ruined a "fact" for me.

"this and its ability to repel mosquitoes along with the lack of expense in manufacture of this product makes it a superior product even today."

Which is why DDT continues to be recommended and used for indoor residual spraying in countries across the world where it is appropriate to local conditions.

Of course, in those areas where it no longer kills the mosquitoes, an insecticide which actually works is preferable.

Then too you have the issue that a much larger dose of DDT is required meaning that transport costs in more remote areas of the developing world more than outweigh the lower production cost.

Oh and let's not forget that DDT spraying assumes a working government capable of getting spray teams out to every town and village every couple of years whereas bed-nets require only the most basic distribution systems.

"I am for saving lives, but that does not preclude the need to remove the ban on DDT as it is a product that is still needed. DDT saves lives."

At this point I'll ask you to look back through the archive of previous posts on this topic for Tim's links to the countries which still manufacture and use DDT. The manufacture and use of DDT for insecticidal purposes never stopped.

I am not quite sure why you are challenging the term "ban", since this is the term used by EPA on their own web site. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm In an article which appeared in the New York Times some years ago where-in Bill Ruckelshaus was interviewed he used the word "banned" himself. His defense of the disaster the "ban" caused worldwide was the just because DDT was banned in the United States it didn't mean that the rest of the world had to follow. It is also true the most areas of the world didn't outright ban DDT but the pressure from the international community and activities of the environmental movement made it a "de-facto" ban in most areas of the world.

Of course you may be referring to international treaties that allow the use of DDT in emergency situations involving malaria under the "Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS). The convention, known as the POPs Treaty, would have made the de facto ban legally binding and permanent. However, conscientious scientists and public health officials rallied to carve out a "DDT exemption" in the treaty. That exemption:" http://www.thecra.org/Strange%20Club/Environmentalism/DDT%20and%20Malar… The exemptions listed are as follows:
1) restricts DDT use and production to disease vector (e.g. mosquito) control only and does not permit the insecticide's renewed use for agriculture;
2) requires countries using DDT to follow WHO guidelines for disease/vector control;
3) requires countries to notify the WHO if they use DDT;
4) requires rich countries to pay the "agreed incremental costs" of more expensive alternatives to DDT (this is located elsewhere in the treaty); and
5) encourages rich countries to support research and development of alternatives to DDT.
What the treaty does NOT require is equally important.
1) It does NOT require a country to notify WHO before it sprays DDT; thus, in an epidemic, a country may spray first and report to the WHO later.
2) It does NOT require that a country obtain the WHO's approval at any time.
3) It does NOT require that poor countries bear the added cost of alternatives to DDT.
4) It does NOT set a deadline by which countries must stop using or producing DDT.
5) It does NOT restrict DDT use to malaria control, but allows its use for controlling any vector-borne disease.16
"And yet, environmental imperialist ideology and inertia inside US-funded aid agencies keep ensuring the deaths of millions each year: USAID spent $80 million on malaria in 2004, but not a dime of it actually purchased insecticides - and only $4 million may have gone toward promoting or buying bed nets."

Recent events in Uganda clearly show the politics surrounding this issue and the pressure brought to bear when a country dares to exert their rights. In fact until the actual ban on DDT is lifted this will always be an issue. As noted in the following site, http://www.blackherbals.com/politics_of_DDT.htm
"Despite the cost in human lives, many groups stubbornly defend the ban. While the World Health Organisation, the National Academy of Sciences, and UNICEF have recommended continued DDT use, influential organisations such as the Norwegian Development Agency, the Swedish International Development Agency, the Swedish Aid Agency, and USAID - the sorts of groups from whom some poor nations such as Uganda receive the majority of their public health money - continue to insist that DDT be left out of malaria-control efforts."

This resistance was absolutely firm until very recently when the WHO reversed itself on DDT use and UNICEF started funding DDT applications in Africa in spite of international guarantees that individual countries could make that decision themselves.

I hope this has restored your confidence in my previous comments.

AGRICULTURAL use of DDT was banned IN THE UNITED STATES.

Over a dozen countries use DDT for insecticidal purposes. This use has continued throughout the period of the supposed ban. Any other country which decided it was the best insecticide to use would be free to do so.

The claims of a ban on DDT is roughly on par with claiming that penicillin is banned because it isn't sold for veterinary use.

Banning the agricultural use of DDT greatly slowed the development of DDT-resistant mosquito strains. It saved lives by making it possible to continue using DDT for indoor residual spraying and bed-nets.

"I am not quite sure why you are challenging the term "ban", since this is the term used by EPA on their own web site. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm"

Because the EPA is speaking of banning DDT in the US, and those who would save us from Rachel Carson are speaking of banning DDT worldwide.

"USAID - the sorts of groups from whom some poor nations such as Uganda receive the majority of their public health money - continue to insist that DDT be left out of malaria-control efforts."

once more unto the breach, dear friends:
"USAID and DDT
USAID supports indoor residual spraying (IRS) with DDT as an effective malaria prevention strategy in tropical Africa in those specific situations where it is judged to be the best insecticide for IRS both epidemiologically and entomologically and based on host-country policy. Its use for IRS to prevent malaria is an allowable exception under the Stockholm Convention - also known as. the Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty or POPs Treaty - when used in accordance with WHO guidelines and when safe, effective, and affordable alternatives are not available. For a variety of reasons, some countries do not conduct IRS or have not registered DDT for use in their malaria control programs. The reasons may include the epidemiological situation of the country, the organizational capacity of the program, or in some cases, concerns related to their agricultural export market. The Stockholm Convention aims to eventually end the use of all POPs, including DDT.

The determination of which of the WHO-approved insecticides to use for USAID's IRS programs is made in coordination with the host-country malaria control program, with the primary objective of preventing as many malaria infections and deaths as possible. That determination is based on cost-effectiveness; on entomological factors; on local building materials; and on host-country policy. USAID adheres to strict environmental guidelines, approval processes, and procedures for the use of DDT and all other WHO-approved insecticides in its malaria control programs. As part of our environmental assessments and safer use action plans, we help countries build capacity for safe and judicious use of all chemicals used in their malaria control programs, including DDT

The fact is that DDT is more effective and less expensive than many other insecticides in many situations; as a result, it is a very competitive choice for IRS programs. DDT specifically has an advantage over other insecticides when long persistence is needed on porous surfaces, such as unpainted mud walls, which are found in many African communities, particularly in rural or semi-urban areas.

USAID has never had a "policy" as such either "for" or "against" DDT for IRS. The real change in the past two years has been a new interest and emphasis on the use of IRS in general, - with DDT or any other insecticide - as an effective malaria prevention strategy in tropical Africa. "
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/id/malaria/news/afrmal_ddt…

"Over a dozen countries use DDT for insecticidal purposes. This use has continued throughout the period of the supposed ban. Any other country which decided it was the best insecticide to use would be free to do so. "

I'm still trying to get an answer as to what would make the Carsonophobes feel that the third world is being saved properly. A requirement that DDT be sprayed in every home? Eliminating the ban on agricultural spraying? Laws against DDT-defamation?

Z, too modest. Once DDT is included in all drinking water and every square foot of the planet has been drenched to a height of at least 3 metres in the stuff, we'll achieve Utopia.

The idea that USAID was neither for or against the application DDT is disengenous.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/USAID+shuns+use+of+lifesaving+DDT+to+cont… They may have not taken an official position on DDT, but theirs was a position of non action, resulting in a position that was opposed to the use of DDT by default. Currently they are supporting the indoor application of DDT, but that was only until recently.....very recently. As for the "Carsonophobes", if it wasn't for these people causing so much of a stir this wouldn't have happened. Even as late as 2005 USAID had no plans to support DDT applications. http://www.cei.org/gencon/004,04937.cfm

The world has 192 countries recognized by the U. N. The fact that only 12 have had the courage or financial where- with- all to ignore the environmental movement and their cats paws in the developed world and keep using DDT is testimony to how well the ban, whether partial or de-facto, has worked. We keep coming back to the same basic question. Was there real science to prove that DDT should have been banned to any degree in the first place and the answer from the original participants in this saga is a resounding "no". Rachel Carson was wrong in her speculations, wrong in her conclusions, wrong in many of her "facts" or deliberately misrepresented information and Bill Ruckelshaus knew it by his own admission.

Comparing the limiting the use of antibiotics in animals and banning DDT is a specious argument. The purpose of limiting the use of antibiotics was to help avoid resistance in pathogens in order to extend the life of these products. Whether this has worked or is working is left to be seen. However, the ban on DDT was ultimately intended to eliminate the product entirely, not save it for future possible applications. Resistance arguments for future use were never part of the activists concern. This was the first step by them in their ultimate strategy of the total elimination of DDT and ultimately pesticides as a whole. The POPs treaty was intended to do just that by driving "the world to the brink of imposing a universal ban on DDT via the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS). The convention, known as the POPs Treaty, would have made the de facto ban legally binding and permanent". These exceptions you are all so proud to trumpet was not promoted by those hot to pass this treaty, but by "conscientious scientists and public health officials rallied to carve out a "DDT exemption" in the treaty." http://www.thecra.org/Strange%20Club/Environmentalism/DDT%20and%20Malar…

I would like to point out that if there wasn't some sort of ban or restrictions or activity to eliminate DDT this site wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be having these discussions, so to suggest otherwise is disingenuous and specious.

Clearly many of you have made your minds up as to what is correct and nothing will dissuade you in your views. This is unfortunate as I shared your views for many years and mouthed many of the things I see posted here. That continued until I actually started researching the information myself. For you all to have been this involved and not to have done the research or to only accept the information that pleases you amazes me.

I wish you all well as this is my last post as I can see that there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Too bad, because I would have been interested to learn how you got a defacto USAID DDT ban from your reference to
"Even as late as 2005 USAID had no plans to support DDT applications.
http://www.cei.org/gencon/004,04937.cfm"

which says
"In the recent past, while USAID has spent over $400 million on malaria control, analysis of the 2004 budget shows less than 10 percent of this was spent on actual commodities that save lives. USAID considers that its area of expertise is to provide technical assistance and this is consistent with why 81 percent of its 2004 budget never left the United States."

"The fact that only 12 have had the courage or financial where- with- all to ignore the environmental movement and their cats paws in the developed world and keep using DDT is testimony to how well the ban, whether partial or de-facto, has worked"

How many of the other 180 are outside the malaria zone or have effective malaria control programs in place which use chemicals other than DDT?

By the way. I wrote "over a dozen", Why not check the actual number for yourself? You might have to look beyond the CEI for the information though.

I would like to point out that if there wasn't some sort of ban or restrictions or activity to eliminate DDT this site wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be having these discussions, so to suggest otherwise is disingenuous and specious.

Okay, we're learning now. Lesson for today: if some whackos put together a web site filled with nonsense, that nonsense is accurate, otherwise the "site wouldn't be there" so to even so much as "suggest" that the nonsense is in fact nonsense is "disingenuous"... and that's not all, it's "specious" too!

Well, that takes care of that! My criticism of the nonsense is prejudged, predebunked if you will. So I won't even think of giving it.

Now take a look at what our "exterminator" thinks is not nonsense. It's a page put out by the "Christian Restoration Association", and relies heavily on Roger Bate's BS output from his Philip Morris-funded astroturf group "Africa Fighting Malaria" (Covered here at Deltoid).

R. Kozlovich said:

No one has been able to present anything that supports overturning Judge Sweeney's judgment (after seven months of testimony, [Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972) that DDT, when used properly, was completely safe for people and wildlife.

That's a bogus citation. The citation goes to the section of the Code of Federal Regulations that governs hearings at EPA, but is otherwise completely unrelated, and uninformative, about any specific hearing, let alone a hearing held 34 years ago. (You can look it up online at Firstgov.gov, and other locations.)

I note that the EPA history, and brief histories I have in my library, say that two different EPA panels recommended a ban on DDT in 1972. There was litigation, with EPA being sued to force a ban when Ruckelshaus did not move quickly enough to please groups trying to save birds, and the courts sided with the environmental groups on the basis of the records produced in court. As a matter of administrative law, if Sweeney had said "no ban, keep using DDT as before," Ruckelshaus would have had no legal legs to stand on when the chemical companies sued, as they did.

So, not only is the citation in error, the facts as described do not stand up to reason under U.S. law and the events as well recorded in other places.

Has anyone actually got a copy of the Sweeney hearings? Mr. Kozlovich?

Those damn Canadians are among those who don't spray any DDT, leaving their population at the mercy of malaria.

Tim:

Directed here by Millard Fillmore's Bathtub, warned "the tinfoil hat brigade comes out" zomg. truer words never spoken, etc.

We should not be nice about this, nor give anyone the benefit of the doubt in the slightest, anymore. Take the Rutledges and Kozloviches and stomp the unlife out of them. Then backtrack to the vampire's lair and stake the sources.

Marion is a vampire slayer now. Hey, Marion murder is a capital punishment in the north west where you hail from.

By the way it says you're an Acquarius on you website. Huh! I'm a capricorn. Isn't that amazing.