0
   

Hooray for DDT's life-saving comeback

 
 
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 08:19 am
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=hooray_for_ddts_life-saving_comeback&ns=JohnStossel&dt=10/04/2006&page=full&comments=true

Who says there's never any good news? After more than 30 years and tens of millions dead -- mostly children -- the World Health Organization (WHO) has ended its ban on DDT. DDT is the most effective anti-mosquito, anti-malaria pesticide known. But thanks to the worldwide environmental movement and politically correct bureaucrats in the United States and at the United Nations, the use of this benign chemical has been discouraged in Africa and elsewhere, permitting killer mosquitoes to spread death.

I don't expect any apologies from the people who permitted this to happen. But I am thankful this nightmare is ending.

DDT was banned by President Richard Nixon's Environmental Protection Agency in the early 1970s, after Rachel Carson's book, "Silent Spring," claimed to show that DDT threatened human health as well as bird populations. But some scientists found no evidence for her claims. Even if there was danger to bird eggs, the problem was the amount of DDT used, not the chemical itself.

Huge amounts of the chemical were sprayed in America. I've watched old videos of people at picnics who just kept eating while trucks sprayed thick white clouds of DDT on top of them. Some people even ran toward the truck -- as if it was an ice-cream truck -- they were so happy to have mosquitoes repelled. Tons of DDT were sprayed on food and people. Despite this overuse, there was no surge in cancer or any other human injury.

Nevertheless, the environmental hysteria led to DDT's suppression in Africa, where its use had been dramatically reducing deaths. American foreign aid could be used to finance ineffective alternative anti-malaria methods, but not DDT. Within a short time, the mosquitoes and malaria reappeared, and deaths skyrocketed. Tens of millions of people have died in that time.

DDT advocates pointed out that the ban amounted to mass murder. But they could not move the rich white environmental dogmatists who reflexively condemn all kinds of chemicals, and presumably lost no sleep when millions of poor African children died.

But now this has changed. Last month, the WHO announced that it supports indoor spraying of DDT and other insecticides "not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa."

"The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment," said Dr. Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO assistant director-general for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. "DDT presents no health risk when used properly."

WHO now calls DDT the "most effective" pesticide for indoor use. Some environmental groups have also changed their anti-DDT tune, including Greenpeace, Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club. Last year, Greenpeace spokesman Rick Hind told the New York Times, "If there's nothing else and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody's dogmatic about it."

That's easy to say now. But what about all the people who died when groups like Greenpeace dogmatically refused to budge on the ban? Might an apology be in order?

Junk-science debunker Steven Milloy, an adjunct scholar with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wonders why the environmentalists took so long to change their minds.

"There are no new facts on DDT -- all the relevant science about DDT safety has been available since the 1960s," Milloy says.

Milloy adds: "It might be easy for some to dismiss the past 43 years of eco-hysteria over DDT with a simple 'never mind,' except for the blood of millions of people dripping from the hands of the WWF [World Wildlife Fund], Greenpeace, Rachel Carson, Environmental Defense Fund, and other junk science-fueled opponents of DDT."

Milloy reminds us that the same people who spread DDT hysteria are now pushing the global-warming scare. "If they and others could be so wrong about DDT, why should we trust them now?"

That's a fair question. For now, let's celebrate the coming elimination of malaria in Africa.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 695 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 06:17 pm
Not even disputing the side effects of and usefulness of DDT, Gunga - but, OH MY GOD! What is with you and DDT?
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 09:05 pm
I think Littlek should always post right after gungasnake, because her sig line is the only possible response to his...
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 09:06 pm
<grin>

I do try.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 06:43 pm
Its interesting that the reporter (who has not a clue what Carson was even saying) is parroting WHO's term called "Integrated Pest Management". The use of DDT has really never stopped in Equatoril and subSaharan Africa so this inclusion into an IPM bag will satisfy the lobby's and the chem companys that still make the stuff. What Carson said was that DDT as a first effort pesticide, develops resistance in Anophales mosquitoes very rapidly so the "children saved will probably be offset by the children who die from disease carrying but immune mosquitoes. This entire strategy revolves around an interior spraying strategy where, it is hoped. The mosquitoes indoors wont live long enough to pass on resistance. Evolution dictates that mosquitoes on the interiro will be resistant at about a 1:100000 rate. If all the non resistant ones are killed, then only those with natural resistance will repopulate and thus grow to be dangerous. IPM requires that pesticides be switched over periodically so that new populations are decimated by pyrethrins (also shown resistance, and organophosphates-ditto) .

Itll probably work for a few years but will, in the end , initiate a rise of a scourge of "supermosquitoes"
Thats all Carson was saying and everyone (except the Limbaugh luddites) know that her data is correct, its not a bunch of hysterical scientists. In fact , its the hysterical right wing reporters who are carrying the banner and there is some private funding (like the Amandsens) who wish to try the skeeter eugenics experiment.

As far as population chronic effects, there will have to be a strict ban freom around pregnant or lactating mothers because the DDE (frist order breakdown) IS a mutagen , and our bodies break this down and most is excreted. However mothers milk carries DDE also, and the nursing babies can get a toxic dose

gunga. Just cause you dont believe in it, doesnt mean that its not right..
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 07:01 pm
Again, for the benefit of anybody who doesn't know better, nobody is asking that we return to the 50s policies of using DDT as an area pesticide for crops. All anybody is asking is that it be available to protect human habitats and go after mosquito breeding grounds.

No human will ever be harmed by that, and no mosquitos will ever develop immunity from anything from that.

The banning of DDT has caused 90 million human deaths unnecessarily and a much larger reality of pain and suffering for hundreds of millions.

Rachel Carson is alone at number one on the list of historical mass murderers. Whoever is number two, is WAY the hell back in number two. Hitler and Chengis Khan didn't even come close.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 07:16 pm
Quote:
No human will ever be harmed by that, and no mosquitos will ever develop immunity from anything from that.
I believe thats what I said that, if used indoors, as part of an IPM this is what they HOPE will happen. Do your may years of genetic resaerch give you the insight that nothing will happen ? or is it John Stossel, the old NPR reporter who, like Mike Medved, went total wingnut in his 40's Lets say with real accuracy, that we have no clue, neither you, I, or medical science..

Inquiring minds want to know.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:50 pm
Gunga.

DDT was never banned by the WHO, so I don't quite understand what the point of the OP is.

Anyway;

Quote:
Again, for the benefit of anybody who doesn't know better, nobody is asking that we return to the 50s policies of using DDT as an area pesticide for crops. All anybody is asking is that it be available to protect human habitats and go after mosquito breeding grounds.


It has been available in all those areas that have a need of it. Nothing has changed.

Quote:
No human will ever be harmed by that, and no mosquitos will ever develop immunity from anything from that.


I would welcome your proof of these assertions. While you're working on that you might want to read up on DDT use in India and the immunity problems which arose.

Quote:
The banning of DDT has caused 90 million human deaths unnecessarily and a much larger reality of pain and suffering for hundreds of millions.


Which banning are you talking about? The banning in the USA? How did that cause 90 million deaths? Or are you just talking crap? Oh, that's right you're not talking anything, you're just parroting the stuff you read on crap websites.

Quote:
Rachel Carson is alone at number one on the list of historical mass murderers. Whoever is number two, is WAY the hell back in number two. Hitler and Chengis Khan didn't even come close.


You have a seriously deluded concept of what constitutes a mass murderer. Also, Rachel Carson never suggested that DDT be banned.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 05:03 am
In reality she did, in effect call for a "reexamination" of the use of many ag chemicals DDTincluded. In "Silent Spring", two chapters stand out
the second, "Elixers of Death" is an indictment of our then primitive undertstandings of how we made ag chemicals and the major problems with Arsenic based chemicals (which noone has ever doubted),organochlorines and organophosphates. .She starts her discusssions with how we attemmpt to overpower the ecosystem with these chemicals since theyd only been shown to be effective in a lab.
The last chapter , called "The Other Road" is an early (some say prescient" view of Integrated Pest Management , one that uses only small amounts of pesticides and relys more heavily upon natural means of pest controls such as sterilization or bacterial infection like Bacillus thruingensis.

Gunga gets on this periodic soapbox because it suits his"Intelligent Design" based political agenda to indict scientists who have been working on IPM methods and have recognized that many ag chemicals , DDT included, have consequences that we only have understood in the view of genetics and metabolite reactions.

John Stossels view is a simplistic one and one that doesnt recognize predictive methods in science. The use of DDT in interirors will (maybe) have some effect until some wag realizes that most mosquitoes live outdoors and many (hell most) traditional houses in Africa are quite permeable. Dieldrin treated mosquito netting has been in use since the 60's and mosquito netting goes back at least a century.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Hooray for DDT's life-saving comeback
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 03:06:24