Article in Prospect on Rachel Carson

I think this article in Prospect on Rachel Carson and DDT is quite good.

Update: John Quiggin has posted the director's cut.

Tags

More like this

Tim Blair reckons that Australian "leftoid" bloggers are losers. Why? Blair has discovered that those bloggers sometimes make mistakes!. For example, David Heidelberg mistook a spoof of Pajamas Media for the real thing, while Chris Sheil made a spelling mistake. But right-wing bloggers make…
Last week, in response to more repetition of the false claim that environmentalists had killed many millions of people with a ban of DDT. John Quiggin set out the facts of the matter: DDT has never been banned in antimalarial use. The main reason for declining use of DDT as an antimalarial has been…
Glenn Reynolds approvingly quotes Rich Karlgaard's ill-informed comments on Rachel Carson: FORBES' RICH KARLGAARD ASKS how many people died because of Rachel Carson? Buried in paragraph 27, and paraphrasing the Congressman, The Washington Post concedes that "numerous" deaths might have been…
Members of the "we hate Rachel Carson" club have been touting a new study on indoor residual spraying as showing that DDT remains effective against malaria even when the mosquitoes are resistant. For examples, see Angela Logomasini and Ron Bailey. The study found that DDT-resistant mosquitoes…

Lessee . . . Quiggin, Lambert - sounds familiar!

Good article, indeed. Question: when Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962, how wide and deep was the evidence that DDT would cause problems? (I guess it must have been solid enough for the President's Science Council.)

Also, a good exposure of Steve Milloy's MO: increase the scope of the fraud to cover the fact that he was carrying water for big tobacco. Like burning a house to cover up a murder. Ugly.

By Mark Shapiro (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

I was looking at a liberal/progressive/feminist blog that posted an open-thread question, "What's your favorite non-fiction book of all time?" There were already about 100 responses, and not one person mentioned Silent Spring, let alone The Sea Around Us.

When it comes to rehabilitating Carson, her demonization by the Right is only part of the problem. Most young, pro-science, liberal environmentalists and feminists have never even heard of her.

That's because nothing happened before 1980, HP.

Rachel Carson launched the modern environmental movement.

That's an interesting statement, which prompts me to ask... was there any wingnut opposition to environmentalism during her time?

That's an interesting statement, which prompts me to ask... was there any wingnut opposition to environmentalism during her time?

You mean like the chemist shown on TV eating DDT to prove it couldn't be environmentally harmful?

dhogaza:

You mean like the chemist shown on TV eating DDT to prove it couldn't be environmentally harmful?

Haven't seen that, unfortunately...

Via Lambert's lead, I found this nugget:

Miss Rachel Carson's reference to the selfishness of insecticide manufacturers probably reflects her Communist sympathies, like a lot of our writers these days. We can live without birds and animals, but, as the current market slump shows, we cannot live without business. As for insects, isn't just like a woman to be scared to death of a few little bugs! As long as we have the H-bomb everything will be O.K. PS. She's probably a peace-nut too.

Wow... wow. *:-|

Lambert, you should have linked to some of the tobacco documents in the article.

Do you recall the massive Aldrin spill into the Mississippi River in 1964? At the time, a fish placed in dechlorinated New Orleans tapwater would die within 5 minutes. Fortunately, I found out about this before I changed water in all my aquariums and destroyed my dissertation research. I think this incident was a major factor in mobilizing environmental awareness and outrange, and in making a heroine out of Rachel Carson.

By Jim Thomerson (not verified) on 13 May 2008 #permalink

Ah, it was an entymologist, not a chemist ...

Not afraid to put his mouth where his moxie was, [J Gordon] Edwards took to swallowing a tablespoon of DDT on stage before every lecture on the subject. In September 1971, Esquire magazine pictured Edwards doing just that. The accompanying text explained that Edwards had "eaten 200 times the normal human intake of DDT." He did not even consider this gesture risky.

Not on TV, just on stage and for Esquire, oops!

I found that on World Net Daily, believe it or not, in an article entitled "DDT-eating scientist exposes eco-fraud".

Human ingestion of DDT proves that it doesn't interfere with calcium deposition in bird ovaries!

Was Edwards able to successfully lay eggs after eating DDT?

Does DDT break down into DDE in the human body? DDE is the worse chemical...

Best,

D

i haven't bothered to track down the original source and verify, but I've heard from not-obviously-insane sources that Edwards in fact died of prostate cancer; in which case the estrogen mimicking effects which he believed the DDT he was ingesting did not possess would have, if anything, prolonged his life. the irony alone is enough to kill a mosquito.

Wikipedia says he died of a heart attack while climbing a mountain at age 84, so I think its fair to give him the point on acute toxicity.

By John Quiggin (not verified) on 13 May 2008 #permalink

Messrs Quiggin and Lambert,

Can you please quote from and link to some of the many strident articles at Fox News and the WSJ claiming Rachel Carson is responsible "for a ban on the use of the insecticide DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane) which allegedly halted a campaign that was about to eradicate malaria, and blame her for millions of deaths from malaria in the Third World"? Since there are apparently lots of such articles the task should only a take a few minutes for experienced Googlers such as yourselves.

It would also be helpful if you could support your claim that the political right mounted a campaign, picked up by the MSM, that caused the World Health Organization "to replace the head of its antimalaria division and announce changes in policies". Perhaps the WHO brought in new personnel hoping the anti-malaria program would start producing results.

You say DDT is currently used to "spray interior house walls or to impregnate bednets". Is the impregnation of bednets a common practice?

How do you account for the following in non-right-wing sources - are the authors perhaps secretly funded by evil tobacco interests?

Fred Pearce, New Scientist:

"It seems millions of lives have been lost because health experts threw away their best weapon. Are environmentalists to blame? There is no doubt that DDT was misused as an agricultural pesticide and seriously damaged wildlife. In that sense Carson was right. But regulators did not recognise that spraying indoors was different. And an environmental outcry against DDT helped to ensure that the early fears about its effect on human health became entrenched dogma long after they had been proved unfounded."

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19626242.000&feedId=health_…

Apoorva Mandavilli, Nature Medicine:

"In theory, any country is free to use DDT. The Stockholm Convention of 2001 sought a global ban on DDT, but many countries and scientists argued against the ban, citing its value in malaria control. The final treaty made an exemption for DDT's use in public health, but called for countries to gradually phase out the pesticide.

"Still, in places where malaria was still endemic, the treaty spelled disaster.

"Most African nations are heavily dependent on foreign aid and can ill afford to cross a line drawn by donor agencies.

"USAID never banned DDT outright, for instance, but nor did it fund DDT's purchase - which amounts to the same thing."

http://0-proquest.umi.com.prospero.murdoch.edu.au:80/pqdlink?did=108956…

John Balbus of Environmental Defense to a USAID official:

"As the organization that led the successful campaign to ban use of DDT in the United States in the early 1970Âs, we have read with concern recent reports that US AID is unwilling to consider even limited use of DDT in anti-malaria programs in developing countries. According to the New York Times Magazine, you recently stated that part of the reason US AID doesn't finance DDT is that doing so would require a battle for public opinion. 'You'd have to explain to everybody why this is really O.K. and safe every time you do it.Â"

http://www.edf.org/documents/5046_DDT-letterUSAID.pdf

Michael Finkel, National Geographic:

"Soon after the program collapsed, mosquito control lost access to its crucial tool, DDT. The problem was overuse--not by malaria fighters but by farmers, especially cotton growers, trying to protect their crops. The spray was so cheap that many times the necessary doses were sometimes applied. The insecticide accumulated in the soil and tainted watercourses. Though nontoxic to humans, DDT harmed peregrine falcons, sea lions, and salmon. In 1962 Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, documenting this abuse and painting so damning a picture that the chemical was eventually outlawed by most of the world for agricultural use. Exceptions were made for malaria control, but DDT became nearly impossible to procure. 'The ban on DDT,' says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, 'may have killed 20 million children.'"

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature1/text4.html

Finally, Carson damned DDT as carcinogenic (at one point claiming a DDT user developed and died of cancer over a period of months having used DDT three times) and implied it was a product of chemical weapons development. Can you point to a single example of Carson advocating DDT use in any circumstance?

JFB: An example from [Fox](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55843,00.html) and one from [the WSJ](http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:ZEHFKYViMfkJ:www.freerepublic.com/…).

We did not say that DDT is used on bednets. Other insecticides are.

Finding examples of people who have fallen for the myth does not make the myth true.

Carson did not say that DDT was the cause of the cancer in the case you cited. In fact she specifically said that it might have been the solvents used. (We now know that benzene can cause leukemia.)

Carson [did not imply that DDT was a product of chemical weapons development](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/the_unending_war_on_rachel_car… ).

From our article, a quote from *Silent Spring*:

>Malaria programs 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' ...,

I hadn't realised until now, but JFB posted the same obtuse comment in three different places. You obviously had more patience with him than I did - the first request was so silly I stopped there.

By John Quiggin (not verified) on 15 May 2008 #permalink

Tim Lambert,

Neither of the linked articles (one from 2000, the other from 2002) supports your claims in either the Prospect article or the director's cut. That's why you don't quote from them.

You do indeed say that DDT is used to impregnate bednets - it's in paragraph four of the director's cut. Oops!

Since neither your links nor mine claim DDT is banned, the alleged DDT ban is a moot point. John Balbus, Michael Finkle, Apoorva Mandavilli and Fred Pearce cannot be faulted as DDT ban myth believers.

The case of the woman who developed and died of cancer having used DDT three times over a period of months is referenced in the index under Leukemia, DDT case histories.

Carson did indeed hint that DDT was a product of chemical weapons programs. At the start of chapter three of Silent Spring, Elixers of Death, Carson emphasizes the build up in nature of unnamed insecticides. There is no doubt she is referring to DDT. In paragraph two of the chapter she says:

"All of this has come about because of the sudden rise and prodigious growth of an industry for the production of man-made or synthetic chemicals with insecticidal properties. [Another reference to DDT.] This industry is a child of the Second World War. In the course of developing agents of chemical warfare, some of the chemicals created in the laboratory were found to be lethal to insects."

Only seven paragraphs later Carson names DDT but says nothing about any other insecticides until mentioning chlordane 13 paragraphs after mentioning DDT.There can be no doubt Carson encouraged readers to think DDT derived from sinister military programs.

Unless you can provide a quote of Carson explicitly advocating DDT use it is safe to assume "spray as little as you possibly can" means zero DDT spraying.

@ J F Beck:

You do indeed say that DDT is used to impregnate bednets - it's in paragraph four of the director's cut. Oops!

So the author forgot what he wrote, did he? Let's take a look at that 4th paragraph:

Perhaps the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted. It takes only a few minutes with Google to discover that DDT has never been banned for antimalarial uses, and that it is currently in use in at least 11 countries. Although outdoor spraying has been abandoned, DDT and other insecticides are used in countries with malaria either to spray interior house walls or to impregnate bednets.

Hmm; looks like the author had it right after all. No statement there that DDT is used for bednets that I can see.

If, for example, I said that metal and glass are used in the manufacture either of the bodywork or the windscreen of a car, am I saying that Ford use metal for their windscreens?

By Robin Levett (not verified) on 16 May 2008 #permalink

Robin Levett,

Let's take another look at the sentence in question:

"Although outdoor spraying has been abandoned, DDT and other insecticides are used in countries with malaria either to spray interior house walls or to impregnate bednets."

You quite rightly observe that Quiggin and Lambert appear to be making an either/or distinction - individual insecticides are either used for indoor spraying or they are used to treat bednets. The sentence does not specify whether DDT is used for indoor spraying or for treating bednets. The context is no help in determining how DDT is used. So, it's unclear how DDT is used.

Matters are further confused by a later statement from the authors:

"Related to this, there has been a long-running, and at times intemperate, dispute within the community of health professionals between advocates of house spraying (for which DDT is often used) and advocates of bednets (which typically use other pesticides)."

This appears to indicate that DDT is not typically used to treat bednets but that such current use is not unknown.

Regardless, the original either/or statement is factually incorrect in that some insecticides approved by the WHO for indoor anti-malaria spraying are also applied to bednets.

It seems to me that two PhDs should at least get their basic facts right, and had ample opportunity to do so, in a 3,900 word article claimed to dispel myths about DDT and Rachel Carson. This appears to present another either/or scenario: Quiggin and Lambert are either ignorant of what's going on in the fight against malaria, or they misinform readers by design. Actually, it's probably best put as, ignorance or malice, or both.

@J F Beck:

Let's take another look at the sentence in question:

No; let's take another look at your original comment:

You say DDT is currently used to "spray interior house walls or to impregnate bednets".

Followed, when challenged, with:

You do indeed say that DDT is used to impregnate bednets - it's in paragraph four of the director's cut. Oops!

So does he, or does he not, say what you originally said he said? Yes or no?

Once you've put the goalposts back and admitted you're wrong (I assume that your comment above that "The context is no help in determining how DDT is used. So, it's unclear how DDT is used" means that when pressed you will be honest and admit you were wrong), we can look your subsequent semantic weaselling, and how a statement that DDT is not the insecticide typically used on bednets can be twisted unto support for a claim that it is so used.

By Robin Levett (not verified) on 17 May 2008 #permalink

I was indeed wrong as it is impossible to tell from what Quiggin and Lambert wrote exactly how DDT is used.

Do you agree that they were wrong in writing, "DDT and other insecticides are used in countries with malaria either to spray interior house walls or to impregnate bednets" since some insecticides are used both for IRS and for treating bednets? Yes or no.

Further, would you care to comment on any of their other errors?

@J F Beck:

Congratulations for admitting you were wrong - but you get points deducted for the qualification on your admission. The sentence in question wasn't answering the question whether DDT was used on bed nets; so to criticise it for being unclear as to whether DDT was so used is somewhat unfair.

No, I don't agree they were wrong in writing that sentence; that is, I don't agree that the sentence is factually incorrect. I agree that, holding it upside down in a certain light isolated from the rest of the article and squinting at it through the right kind of biased spectacles, it could be said to be unclear - and that is the criticism I would make of them for writing it; they should have known there were people around who make a habit of such activities. Although, to be fair, they do state elsewhere that DDT isn't used for bednets, as you correctly point out.

Now, your further claims of error; let's start with:

Can you please quote from and link to some of the many strident articles at Fox News and the WSJ claiming Rachel Carson is responsible "for a ban on the use of the insecticide DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane) which allegedly halted a campaign that was about to eradicate malaria, and blame her for millions of deaths from malaria in the Third World"?

In reply to which Tim linked you to a Fox news article beginning with the words:

June 30, 1972 is a date that lives in junk science infamy. That's when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned the insecticide DDT. The ban survives 30 years later, even as it has helped kill millions of people, mostly children.

Widespread DDT use began in the U.S. in 1945 to control mosquitoes and cotton, soybean and peanut pests. DDT's efficacy and low-cost were - and remain - unsurpassed.

Rachel Carson inflamed the public against DDT with her book "Silent Spring." She claimed DDT harmed bird reproduction and caused cancer. But Carson misrepresented the then-existing science on bird reproduction and was dead wrong about DDT causing cancer.

I'd be interested to see your argument that that doesn't support the claim in the article.

By Robin Levett (not verified) on 18 May 2008 #permalink

Robin, I think you'll find his argument involves holding a sentence from the Fox news piece "upside down in a certain light isolated from the rest of the article and squinting at it through the right kind of biased spectacles"

@Tim:

Robin, I think you'll find his argument involves holding a sentence from the Fox news piece "upside down in a certain light isolated from the rest of the article and squinting at it through the right kind of biased spectacles"

You might say that - I couldn't possibly comment...

By Robin Levett (not verified) on 18 May 2008 #permalink

Robin Levett,

I originally asked for links to and quotes from the supposedly strident Fox and WSJ articles claiming Carson is responsible "for a ban on the use of the insecticide DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane) which allegedly halted a campaign that was about to eradicate malaria, and blame her for millions of deaths from malaria in the Third World". Neither of Lambert's links support this claim.

The Fox article does not claim there is or was a worldwide ban which halted a campaign that was about to eradicate malaria.

Since you're carrying Lambert's water for him, how about you dig up the evidence supporting the claim that pressure from the right caused the WHO to change personnel and policies.

@J F Beck:

Since you're carrying Lambert's water for him

No; simply continuing the collection I started with Holocaust denialists and creationists.

The Fox article does not claim there is or was a worldwide ban which halted a campaign that was about to eradicate malaria.

Really? Read the first paragraph I quoted. It says the US EPA "banned the insecticide DDT", and that ban "has helped kill millions of people" over 30 years. That covers the claim of the existence of a ban attributed to Rachel Carson (albeit at this point just in the US), and that the ban killed millions of people.

That the alleged ban is (now) formally worldwide in extent we know from later in the piece:

Activists recently succeeded in pushing a virtual world-wide ban in the form of a United Nations' treaty signed by the Bush administration, but not yet ratified by the Senate.

Let's be clear here; this is the main thrust of Tim's allegation, and it is quite clearly made out in Milloy's own words.

The question of whether the ban prevented the effective worldwide eradication of malaria is much the less important claim - but is nevertheless made out.

We know that malaria mortality over the last 30 years is "millions of people" - of the order of 30-40 million, I believe (although the author of the piece suggests over 90 million on his own website). The question is whether the claim is that the DDT ban prevented the worldwide eradication of malaria. If Milloy's claim is that all - or the vast bulk - of the deaths can be attributed to the ban, then it follows that his claim is that in the absence of the ban, malaria would have been effectively eradicated by the use of DDT.

Now what do you think Milloy's claim is? That all, some, or few of the deaths from malaria worldwide can be attributed to the ban? My reading of the article is clear; he blames Carson for pretty much all the deaths. I am confirmed in that reading by a reading of Milloy's junk website, which blames (on the Malaria Clock page) pretty much every death post 1972 on the DDT "ban" - his comment is:

Note that some of these cases would have occurred irrespective of DDT use. Note also that, while enormously influential, the US ban did not immediately terminate global DDT use and that developing world malaria mortality increased over time rather than instantly leaping to the estimated value of 2,700,000 deaths per year. However, certain in the knowledge that even one human sacrificed on the altar of green misanthropy is infinitely too many, I let stand the linear extrapolation of numbers from an instant start on the 1st of the month following this murderous ban

By Robin Levett (not verified) on 19 May 2008 #permalink

I know j.f. Beck caused the death of millions of brain cells. Due to the drinks required to tolerate the virtual ban on sanity. Innocent, unsuspecting brain cells!! :(

By marion delgado (not verified) on 20 May 2008 #permalink

Whether there is, or is not, a ban on DDT it remains that it would only be a stopgap in the prevention of malaria. Like most chemical insecticides, insects through natural selection become resistant to the chemical. I have seen studies on mosquitoes that showed this in a very graphic manner. I can't reproduce this because it was from a film that shown in a biology class I was enrolled in back in the 1970's. Also I had personal experience with the use of DDT in a dairy before DDT was banned for use in them. The first year we used DDT it was a wonder chemical. Just a slight spraying eliminated flies from the cows and milk house. As time went on it required more and more DDT to accomplish the same results, finally being almost useless.

Judicious applications of DDT may help for a time but it is not a cure for malaria. DDT is a persistent chemical and we really do not know of all the long range effects of it in the environment or in the human body. Perhaps some may not be concerned with the accumulation of DDT in their bodies but I would just as soon not have it there. About the only argument left is that it is claimed that DDT has some repellent properties....