Tigermike 3,027 Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Junk Science & DDTPosted September 13, 2004 By Keith Lockitch The West Nile virus deaths being reported across North America are a grim echo of a larger tragedy. Each year a million lives are taken worldwide by another mosquito-borne killer: malaria. Though nearly eradicated decades ago, malaria has resurged with a vengeance. But the real tragedy is that its horrific death toll is largely preventable. The most effective agent of mosquito control, the pesticide DDT, has been essentially discarded--discarded based not on scientific concerns about its safety, but on environmental dogma. The environmental crusade against DDT began with Rachel Carson's antipesticide diatribe "Silent Spring," published in 1962 at the height of the worldwide antimalaria campaign. The widespread spraying of DDT had caused a spectacular drop in malaria incidence--Sri Lanka, for example, reported 2.8 million malaria victims in 1948, but by 1963 it had only 17. Yet Carson's book made no mention of this. It said nothing of DDT's crucial role in eradicating malaria in industrialized countries, or of the tens of millions of lives saved by its use. Instead, Carson filled her book with misinformation--alleging, among other claims, that DDT causes cancer. Her unsubstantiated assertion that continued DDT use would unleash a cancer epidemic generated a panicked fear of the pesticide that endures as public opinion to this day. But the scientific case against DDT was, and still is, nonexistent. Almost 60 years have passed since the malaria-spraying campaigns began--with hundreds of millions of people exposed to large concentrations of DDT--yet, according to international health scholar Amir Attaran, the scientific literature "has not even one peer reviewed, independently replicated study linking exposure to DDT with any adverse health outcome." Indeed, in a 1956 study human volunteers ate DDT every day for over two years with no ill effects then or since. Abundant scientific evidence supporting the safety and importance of DDT was presented during seven months of testimony before the newly formed EPA in 1971. The presiding judge ruled unequivocally against a ban. But the public furor against DDT--fueled by "Silent Spring" and the growing environmental movement--was so great that a ban was imposed anyway. The EPA administrator, who hadn't even bothered to attend the hearings, overruled his own judge and imposed the ban in defiance of the facts and evidence. And the 1972 ban in the United States led to an effective worldwide ban, as countries dependent on U.S.-funded aid agencies curtailed their DDT use to comply with those agencies' demands. So if scientific facts are not what has driven the furor against DDT, what has? Estimates put today's malaria incidence worldwide at around 300 million cases, with a million deaths every year. If this enormous toll of human suffering and death is preventable, why do environmentalists--who profess to be the defenders of life--continue to press for a global DDT ban? The answer is that environmental ideology values an untouched environment above human life. The root of the opposition to DDT is not science but the environmentalist moral premise that it is wrong for man to "tamper" with nature. The large-scale eradication of disease-carrying insects epitomizes the control of nature by man. This is DDT's sin. To Carson and the environmentalists she inspired, "the 'control of nature' is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy." Nature, they hold, is intrinsically valuable and must be kept free from human interference. On this environmentalist premise the proper attitude to nature is not to seek to improve it for human benefit, but to show "humility" before its "vast forces" and leave it alone. We should seek, Carson wrote, not to eliminate malarial mosquitoes with pesticides, but to find instead "a reasonable accommodation between the insect hordes and ourselves." If the untouched, "natural" state is one in which millions contract deadly diseases, so be it. Carson's current heirs agree. Earth First! founder Dave Foreman writes: "Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as 'disease' (e.g., malaria) and 'pests' (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere." In the few minutes it has taken you to read this article, over a thousand people have contracted malaria and half a dozen have died. This is the life-or-death consequence of viewing pestilent insects as a "necessary" component of a "vibrant biosphere" and seeking a "reasonable accommodation" with them. To stop this global health catastrophe, the ban on DDT must be rescinded. But even more important is to reject the environmental ideology on which the ban is based. Keith Lockitch is a Ph.D. in physics and a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,229 Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Very true. A good read is Dixie Lee Ray's, Trashing the Planet. She explains all the hysteria surrounding DDT, too. The EPA administrator who started all this nonsense by dismissing the judge's decision and all the testimony was William Ruckleshaus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Duh, what about the killing of all the raptors? Remember when the bald eagle almost went extinct because of DDT? DDT stopped and they're back. Does anyone say DDT wasn't wipin' out eagles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,027 Posted September 14, 2004 Author Share Posted September 14, 2004 Does anyone say DDT wasn't wipin' out eagles? No but they are saying that DDT was keeping mosquitoes somewhat under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,229 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Duh, what about the killing of all the raptors? Remember when the bald eagle almost went extinct because of DDT? DDT stopped and they're back. Does anyone say DDT wasn't wipin' out eagles? In a nutshell, there has been no study to definitly link DDT to the thinning of eggshells. Rachel Carson cited some research in her book Silent Spring re egg hatchings of falcons and reached the opposite conclusion as that of the researcher: a certain amount of eggs in the study didn't hatch -- the researcher said the difference between the study and control group was statistically insignificant (and it was), while Carson suggested that all the eggs didn't hatch because of DDT. It might come as a surprise to you but a certain % of eggs in the wild just don't hatch. (It's called natural selection. Sorry, no lawsuits available in the wild -- you'll have to content yourself with human births.) OTOH, Dixie Lee Ray cited facts in her book: Bird populations actually increased during the heaviest DDT use. The annual counts of bird popluations were conducted at Christmastime by the Audobon Society and showed all bird species showed increases between 1941 & 1971. Except ... the peregrine falcon. The reason for the falcon's decline has never been fully explained. The decline in numbers was noted as far back as 1890. DDT use didn't become widespread until after WWII. Some experts have suggested that human encroachment, loss of habitat & availability of prey probably contributed to the decline of falcons more than anything else. Egg-shell thinning can be caused by a variety of factors: diets low in calcium or Vitamin D, fright, high nocturnal temps, naturally occuring diseases such as Newcastle's Disease, etc. Concurrent with the banning of DDT was another law that went into effect at about the same timeframe: The Endangered Species Act. This law has been conveniently overlooked as the reason for eagles and other raptor populations increasing rather than the ban on DDT. The bottom line is this: DDT got a bum rap. The misinformation has been repeated so often it's become accepted as "fact." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Duh, what about the killing of all the raptors? Remember when the bald eagle almost went extinct because of DDT? DDT stopped and they're back. Does anyone say DDT wasn't wipin' out eagles? In a nutshell, there has been no study to definitly link DDT to the thinning of eggshells. Rachel Carson cited some research in her book Silent Spring re egg hatchings of falcons and reached the opposite conclusion as that of the researcher: a certain amount of eggs in the study didn't hatch -- the researcher said the difference between the study and control group was statistically insignificant (and it was), while Carson suggested that all the eggs didn't hatch because of DDT. It might come as a surprise to you but a certain % of eggs in the wild just don't hatch. (It's called natural selection. Sorry, no lawsuits available in the wild -- you'll have to content yourself with human births.) OTOH, Dixie Lee Ray cited facts in her book: Bird populations actually increased during the heaviest DDT use. The annual counts of bird popluations were conducted at Christmastime by the Audobon Society and showed all bird species showed increases between 1941 & 1971. Except ... the peregrine falcon. The reason for the falcon's decline has never been fully explained. The decline in numbers was noted as far back as 1890. DDT use didn't become widespread until after WWII. Some experts have suggested that human encroachment, loss of habitat & availability of prey probably contributed to the decline of falcons more than anything else. Egg-shell thinning can be caused by a variety of factors: diets low in calcium or Vitamin D, fright, high nocturnal temps, naturally occuring diseases such as Newcastle's Disease, etc. Concurrent with the banning of DDT was another law that went into effect at about the same timeframe: The Endangered Species Act. This law has been conveniently overlooked as the reason for eagles and other raptor populations increasing rather than the ban on DDT. The bottom line is this: DDT got a bum rap. The misinformation has been repeated so often it's become accepted as "fact." Sounds like DDT is something you'd wanna feed to the wife and kids! Good Stuff! You've got me wanting some now! *grin* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxWarEagle 3 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 I for sure wouldn't feed it to them, but I'd love to have it around my house protecting it from termites! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,229 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 No nutritional value as far as I know and no flavor enhancement properties either. Suffice to say, it's not for eating. But as far as controlling disease-carrying mosquito populations, it kicks a**. We haven't had a malaria problem in this country in a long time. The West Nile virus has been getting a lot of publicity/attention and rightly so -- it has the capacity to kill, and it has killed people in the US already. Can the same be said for DDT? Has DDT caused the death of one person? Anybody know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,325 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 No nutritional value as far as I know and no flavor enhancement properties either. Suffice to say, it's not for eating. But as far as controlling disease-carrying mosquito populations, it kicks a**. We haven't had a malaria problem in this country in a long time. The West Nile virus has been getting a lot of publicity/attention and rightly so -- it has the capacity to kill, and it has killed people in the US already. Can the same be said for DDT? Has DDT caused the death of one person? Anybody know? But without all the arguments above being fact....THERE'S JUST NO WAY TO SUE THE BIG BAD DDT COMPANIES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChattanoogaTiger 0 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 click on the links and decide for yourself. When looking at the animal studies listed the doses were in miiligrams/kg. A microgram is 1/1000 of a milligram. Is feeding animals thousands of times the natural exposure relevant when looking at real life environments? Any environmental science people,veteranarians, etc on this board? If so please weigh in http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extox...os/ddt-ext.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,229 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Thanks for the links, Chattanoogatiger. I found the answer to my question "has DDT killed one person?" While adults appear to tolerate moderate to high ingested doses of up to 280 mg/kg, a case of fatal poisoning was seen in a child who ingested one ounce of a 5% DDT:kerosene solution (3). A little perspective is needed here: the child died from ingesting a 5% DDT:95% kerosene solution. Both the junkscience link and Dixie Lee Ray have said the same thing about the early use of DDT: it was probably overused or misapplied because it worked so well. I guess it's human nature to reason that if a little bit of something works well, than a lot more of the stuff should work even better. Total indiscriminate use of DDT again is one extreme and a total ban is the other. Neither is appropriate. I can see a need for the CDC to order a specific application of DDT to counter a specific threat such as controlling a localized West Nile virus outbreak from spreading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChattanoogaTiger 0 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Total indiscriminate use of DDT again is one extreme and a total ban is the other. Neither is appropriate. You bring up a good point loggerhead as with most things in our modern life, extremes should be avoided. The best course is one of moderation. The only exception that I support is absolute moral truth based on Biblical principles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.