But Her Heart Was Good

[Tigermike 3,039]

But Her Heart Was Good

Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring--the book that got mosquito-killer DDT banned and launched the modern environmental movement--while struggling with cancer. The disease killed Carson in 1964, two years after Silent Spring came out.

Today's Washington Post has a story on Carson--whose 100th birth anniversary occurs later this month--and her noble fight against cancer. A touching piece.

But maddening, too! Because in the story's 34 paragraphs, there are only a buried pair, the 26th and 27th, that note the ongoing controversy about DDT's ban.

A Maryland Congressman (evil Republican, of course ... wink, wink) is quoted as saying that malaria deaths might have been prevented had DDT not been banned.

That happens to be true. DDT kills mosquitoes, which carry malaria, which was all but eradicated before DDT was banned.

Buried in paragraph 27, and paraphrasing the Congressman, The Washington Post concedes that "numerous" deaths might have been prevented by DDT.

Let's stop here. Any curious reader would ask, Just how "numerous" is numerous? Wouldn't you ask that question? The Post never asks that question. Why?

Because the answer devastates Rachel Carson and her followers. According to these CDC figures, malaria kills more than 800,000 children under age five every year.

Every year, 800,000 small children die from malaria, a disease once nearly eradicated. Ponder that.

And all The Washington Post can say is "numerous?"

That's scandalous.

What do you think?

http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/2007/...er_heart_w.html

According to the World Health Organization’s World Malaria Report 2005:

· At the end of 2004, some 3.2 billion people lived in areas at risk of malaria transmission in 107 countries and territories.

· Between 350 and 500 million clinical episodes of malaria occur every year.

· At least one million deaths occur every year due to malaria.

· About 60% of the cases of malaria worldwide and more than 80% of the malaria deaths worldwide occur in Africa south of the Sahara.

CDC figures

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/impact/index.htm

[CCTAU 3,327]

But thank God she saved that bald eagle egg from thinning......

I'm sure the billions that have died from malaria thank her.

[rexbo 104]

It's ok because all of those surviving kids would have just added to Global Warming; Al Gore can count them as Carbon Offsets...

[TexasTiger 12,956]

But thank God she saved that bald eagle egg from thinning......

I'm sure the billions that have died from malaria thank her.

Billions?

[quietfan 233]

No argument that continued use of DDT could have prevented many malaria deaths. Of course, spraying mass doses of cyanide or plutonium over mosquito infested water would also.

So it's a little too simplistic to imply the DDT ban kills thousands or millions annually. Statisitically, we don't know how many lives it would have saved. Would it have been available/affordable everywhere? Would it have eventually just given rise to DDT-resistant mosquitoes and lost its effectiveness? Would the long term environmental side effects, if they ravaged ecosystems or moved up the food chain to humans, ultimately have resulted in more deaths from these problems? Is DDT itself carcinogenic or otherwise dangerous in the higher concentrations that continued use would have produced? Are there safer alternatives to DDT that might be just as cheap and effective? The article is conveniently silent on all these questions.

I accept the argument that banning DDT resulted in some, probably many malaria deaths that it could have prevented. Malaria prevention is certainly one factor that I hope was carefully weighed in the debate leading up to the ban. However I don't think that alone is grounds for a blanket condemnation of Rachel Carson or the ban....too many other questions to be considered.

Separate topic: I'm also not sure about the characterization of malaria as "a disease once nearly eradicated"--I don't recall any reports of malaria being nearly eradicated (as with smallpox), only speculation that DDT might be able to do that. But that was before my time and I'd be interested in any scientific statistics/studies that did suggest we were close to eliminating the disease.

[WinCrimson 61]

There's no need for DDT or malaria deaths in the world. With modern science, you mean to tell me that there is no way to prevent both? Crazy idea, I know.

[CCTAU 3,327]

There's no need for DDT or malaria deaths in the world. With modern science, you mean to tell me that there is no way to prevent both? Crazy idea, I know.

In a Star Trek world it would be attainable, but in our worlrd, no way. It is too costly. DDT is extremely cheap to produce and to distribute. Drugs to counteract Malaria are too costly and cannot be delivered or administered easily. But DDT can.

DDT has NEVER been proven to cause any of the supposed problems that Carson or her eco-nazis have blamed on it. If it were bad, any of us over the age of 35 would be dead today. they used to spray my neighborhood every day in the summer when I was a kid. We didn't get malaria and we didn't get cancer. DDT did its job in the US but we have doomed millions to death in Africa because we won't export it. Maybe billions was a little much since DDT was invented. But throughout time, billions have died from malaria. With DDT helping control the mosquito populations, many of these (especially since the 50's) could have been prevented.

Bottom line is that Carson is responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

http://www.malaria.org/factpack.html

http://www.malaria.org/DDT_Guardian_VIII_99.html

[TexasTiger 12,956]

DDT has NEVER been proven to cause any of the supposed problems that Carson or her eco-nazis have blamed on it. If it were bad, any of us over the age of 35 would be dead today. they used to spray my neighborhood every day in the summer when I was a kid. We didn't get malaria and we didn't get cancer.

Bottom line is that Carson is responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

http://www.malaria.org/factpack.html

But look what it did do to you.

I see you've downgraded from billions to millions. That's something.

[CCTAU 3,327]

DDT has NEVER been proven to cause any of the supposed problems that Carson or her eco-nazis have blamed on it. If it were bad, any of us over the age of 35 would be dead today. they used to spray my neighborhood every day in the summer when I was a kid. We didn't get malaria and we didn't get cancer.

Bottom line is that Carson is responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

http://www.malaria.org/factpack.html

But look what it did do to you.

I see you've downgraded from billions to millions. That's something.

I actually explained what I meant. Here let me repost it for you:

Maybe billions was a little much since DDT was invented. But throughout time, billions have died from malaria.

[TexasTiger 12,956]

DDT has NEVER been proven to cause any of the supposed problems that Carson or her eco-nazis have blamed on it. If it were bad, any of us over the age of 35 would be dead today. they used to spray my neighborhood every day in the summer when I was a kid. We didn't get malaria and we didn't get cancer.

Bottom line is that Carson is responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

http://www.malaria.org/factpack.html

But look what it did do to you.

I see you've downgraded from billions to millions. That's something.

I actually explained what I meant. Here let me repost it for you:

Maybe billions was a little much since DDT was invented. But throughout time, billions have died from malaria.

Did you study ciphering at Bammer?

[quietfan 233]

CTTAU's link [ http://www.malaria.org/factpack.html ] did answer some of my questions:

30 years ago malaria had been eradicated or dramatically reduced in 37 countries (WHO insecticide spraying programme 1956-69) but this situation has been rapidly reversing, especially over the last decade. The reversal is largely due to the cost of sustaining programmes, loss of motivation in the face of a seemingly declining threat, and the development of insecticide and drug resistance.

India’s malaria eradication programme in the 1950/60s reduced infections from 75 million to 100,000 per annum and fatalities from 800,000 to almost none.

So apparently it was nearly eradicated in many areas-I didn't remember that. Would that have eventually led to worldwide eradication? Who knows, but I doubt it due to the reasons described for the reversal. Note that it does not specifically list the DDT ban as part of the reason for the reversal, although the ban perhaps contributed to "the cost of sustaining programmes".

It does mention the development of insecticide resistance, and later singles out DDT:

Insecticide programmes have also been hampered by the emergence of resistance to DDT and other insecticides.

So we cannot say with confidence that DDT would have continued to be effective.

However, the questions I raised are still valid, IMO, and I stand by my statement:

... I don't think that...is grounds for a blanket condemnation of Rachel Carson or the ban....too many other questions to be considered.

I certainly don't think it's fair or reasonable to make broad statements like Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of deaths! Nor to think of DDT as a magic bullet that would have singlehandedly eliminated malaria with no negative side effects.

[CCTAU 3,327]

Carson is a killer queen. Didn't need a laser beam though. Just a book full of lies.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/arti...summ02/DDT.html

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?artic...nsight__africa/

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=124324&page=6

It's not a magic bullet. But if you were laid up dying of malaria, you sure would think that it would have been nice not to have it.....

Millions each year might be saved. As opposed to a few eagle eggs???????