It's often claimed by DDT advocates that the 1972 ban on the agricultural use of DDT was made in spite of a report that cleared DDT from harm. Jim Easter has found and posted a copy of the report. It turns out that things aren't exactly as DDT advocates present them.
More like this
Now it's the "Rachel Carson killed millions" nonsense over at Uncommon Descent and it's based upon this WSJ editorial from Dr. Zaramba, the health minister for Uganda.
What's really embarrassing is how they link the entire article and it's clear they didn't even read it.
BarryA writes:
When I got…
Today would be her 100th, and it presents us an opportunity to do two things. First, we salute a major influence in the birth of environmentalism in the United States and the world. Second, we want to use the opportunity to defend Carson from the specious attacks on her by the purveyors of the…
by revere, cross-posted at Effect Measure
The team of investigative reporting team of Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel just keeps rolling along, this time with an amazing story about how microwave safe plastics are leaching bisphenol-A (BPA) at potentially unsafe…
Spiteful bacteria. Two words you probably haven't heard together. Then again, you probably haven't heard of altruistic bacteria either, but both sorts of microbes are out there--and in many cases in you.
Bacteria lead marvelously complicated social lives. As a group of University of Edinburgh…
Any bets as to how long it will take for Milloy to correct his malaria FAQ?
I'd be Shocked! Shocked to find gambling going on and someone taking that bet, Harald.
The FAQ is mostly J. Gordon Edward's work. He collected junk like this for decades. I think Milloy added his his name to make himself look like an expert.
Incidentally, right before this blog's front page loaded, I was thinking about the DDT issue... I was at the Ed Brayton blog, and saw how he keeps raising a fuss about proposals that students be allowed to hear more than one point of view, rather than just his own.
I thought to myself how funny it is that some of those at these "Science Blogs" weblogs claim that intelligent design is false, while at the same time, regularly touting the mass hysteria about DDT, which has been so dated and discredited, that even Ralph Nader has turned against it (despite being an initial founder of the American anti-DDT movement).
Fear and hysteria, based on shaky or questionable claims, is a tactic that those who support greater statist interventionism regularly use... It is wrong when the hawks used it, to push for the Iraq war, and the reduction of individual liberties domestically - but it is also wrong when activists (however noble and sincere they may be) use fear, alarm, and half-truthed hysteria to enact their restrictive policies, which can, in some cases, do a great deal more harm than good.
Reading Easter's post was a bit of a walk down memory lane, since DDT laid the foundation for modern pesticide hazard assessment in the 1980s, where my career in environmental health started. For me, it's always been a point of amusement how conservative and libertarian voices, in the defense of liberty, screech about the injustice caused by environmental activists "banning" DDT use in agriculture. In the history of the real world, more sober voices were expressing concerns about DDT (Emil Mrak was scarcely a wild-eyed environmental activist), and forces such as insect resistance and alternative insecticides, were bringing an end to DDT use. Environmentalists were a tipping point in bringing the issue to light and initiating litigation, but can scarcely be considered the prime movers in phasing out DDT use in agriculture. This anti-environmentalist dead horse continues to be flogged because those same voices have never been compelled to live in the real world.
One should endeavor to get one's facts correct. First, Nader was active against abuse of DDT, but he came a bit late to the fight. Calling him a "founder" gives him more credit than due, I think. Second, concern about DDT use is no "hysteria." Anytime deadly poisons or hormone disrupters are used on an industrial scale, concern is wise. DDT kills, and the movement to control DDT use is responsible for saving the lives of millions of people. DDT abuse would have made it wholly useless against malaria vectors had it not been controlled in the early 1970s, plus it would have continued to kill predators of disease-spreading mosquitoes, thereby contributing to malaria's spread. Third, Nader's position hasn't changed much -- he's still opposed to abuse, to broadcast spraying of DDT for any purpose, including alleged malaria control.
If that's too subtle to ring true for you, I urge you to check the facts. You can look them up.