Silent Spring: RIP 2004

Capitalism Magazine ^ | July 07, 2004 | Walter Williams

[presidio9]

Ever since Rachel Carson's 1962 book "Silent Spring," environmental extremists have sought to ban all DDT use. Using phony studies from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental activist-controlled Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT in 1972. The extremists convinced the nation that DDT was not only unsafe for humans but unsafe to birds and other creatures as well. Their arguments have since been scientifically refuted.

While DDT saved crops, forests and livestock, it also saved humans. In 1970, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT saved more than 500 million lives during the time it was widely used. A scientific review board of the EPA showed that DDT is not harmful to the environment and showed it to be a beneficial substance that "should not be banned." According to the World Health Organization, worldwide malaria infects 300 million people. About 1 million die of malaria each year. Most of the victims are in Africa, and most are children.

In Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today. More than 100,000 people died during malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s, following the suspension of DDT house spraying. After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu-Natal province skyrocketed from 8,000 to 42,000. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Now that DDT is being used again, the number of deaths from malaria in the region has dropped from 340 in 2000 to none at the last reporting in February 2003.

In South America, where malaria is endemic, malaria rates soared in countries that halted house spraying with DDT after 1993 -- Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela. In Ecuador, DDT spraying was increased after 1993, and the malaria rate of infection was reduced by 60 percent. In a 2001 study published by the London-based Institute for Economic Affairs, "Malaria and the DDT Story," Richard Tren and Roger Bate say that "Malaria is a human tragedy," adding, "Over 1 million people, mostly children, die from the disease each year, and over 300 million fall sick."

The fact that DDT saves lives might account for part of the hostility toward it. Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990:

"My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."

Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,

"People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any."

Spraying a house with small amounts of DDT costs $1.44 per year; alternatives are five to 10 times more, making them unaffordable in poor countries. Rich countries that used DDT themselves threaten reprisals against poor countries if they use DDT.

One really wonders about religious groups, the Congressional Black Caucus, government and non-government organizations, politicians and others who profess concern over the plight of poor people around the world while at the same time accepting or promoting DDT bans and the needless suffering and death that follow. Mosquito-borne malaria not only has devastating health effects but stifles economic growth as well.

[cyborg]

The fact that DDT saves lives might account for part of the hostility toward it. Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990:

"My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."

*** Mr.King sounds like a pleasant person to talk to/sarcasm

[cyborg]

I'll also add another though. Is DDT safe or not? If it is then it should be fine for Americans to consume as well. Would you eat anything that's had DDT sprayed on/near it?

[null and void]

He should lead by example...

[Carry_Okie]

These idiots apparently don't know that people have fewer babies when they know the kids will survive.

[null and void]

I used to play in the clouds of DDT behind the fogger truck. It was the only mosquito free area in Beaufort. Watch the little bassturds drop from the air and twitch and DIE!

I'm OK now.

What were we talking about, again?

[null and void]

When I was a kid I used to chase the DDT truck. No problem.

[cyborg]

Yep

[Carry_Okie]

Is DDT safe or not? If it is then it should be fine for Americans to consume as well. Would you eat anything that's had DDT sprayed on/near it?

J. Gordon Edwards used to stand in front of the activists and eat DDT powder. Next to glyphostate, it's the safest pesticide ever developed. As to whether it is safe in the environment, consider this:

Audubon Society
Christmas Bird Count Data
1941 (2,331 Observers)
vs. 1960 (8,928 Observers)
Species	Count			Count/Observer		Ratio/Observer
	1941	1960		1941	1960		1960/1941
Eagle	197	891		0.08	0.10		1.18
Gull	124,470	635,642		53.40	71.20		1.33
Raven	667	2,669		0.29	0.30		1.04
Crow	185,519	250,307		79.59	28.04		0.35
Quail	2,060	10,276		0.88	1.15		1.30
Pheasant	6,839	19,731		2.93	2.21		0.75
Mounring Dove	7,411	72,958		3.18	8.17		2.57
Swallow	14,347	242,303		6.15	27.14		4.41
Grebe	2,501	27,826		1.07	3.12		2.90
Pelican	4,450	10,562		1.91	1.18		0.62
Cormorant	3,246	27,162		1.39	3.04		2.18
Heron	2,254	16,253		0.97	1.82		1.88
Egret	1,469	16,800		0.63	1.88		2.99
Swan	18,554	33,994		7.96	3.81		0.48
Goose	182,820	696,777		78.43	78.04		1.00
Ducks	2,137,093	2,739,517		916.81	306.85		0.33
Balckbird	137,502	20,552,375		58.99	2,302.01		39.02
Grackle	24,937	12,570,458		10.70	1,407.98		131.61
Cowbird	40,019	3,286,314		17.17	368.09		21.44
Chickadee	21,330	55,906		9.15	6.26		0.68
Titmouse	5,038	18,268		2.16	2.05		0.95
Nuthatch	4,214	13,439		1.81	1.51		0.83
Robin	19,616	928,639		8.42	104.01		12.36
English Sparrow	53,335	358,769		22.88	40.18		1.76
Bluebird	3,742	6,903		1.61	0.77		0.48
Starling	211,836	8,673,095		90.88	971.45		10.69
Sources:	42nd Christmas Bird Count			Audubon Magazine, 1942
	61st Christmas Bird Count			Audubon Field Notes, 15, 1961

The best theory I've seen explaining why the birds flourished during the production of DDT, the speculation is that it killed mites that cause the birds to pluck their feathers and get pneumonia.

Thanks to Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, Professor Emeritus of Entomology at San Jose State University, for providing me this information.

[cyborg]

LOL you seem okay ;-)

[Cicero]

There's some truth in this. But what the whole truth is is hard to say. From what I have heard, DDT is very persistent, whereas safer pesticides break down after a while. Also I think it was true that DDT softened the shells of ospreys and other birds of prey, because after it was discontinued these birds certainly made a major comeback.

The softening of birds' eggshells might not seem that significant, but it occurred because they are high on the food chain, and it was a sign that it was effecting their health. Human beings are high on the food chain too.

It's hard to know the exact truth because objective scientific research in politically sensitive areas is almost nonexistent. But although I think Rachel Carson's book exaggerated the problem and set off a lot of bad consequences, I still wouldn't want to spray DDT around my place where the kids play.

[null and void]

Bah! Our kitchen was a DDT saturated zone. I'm sure I ate LOTS of DDT, and I turned out just fine.

[Ditto]

Would you eat anything that's had DDT sprayed on/near it?

Yes. It's pretty much harmless.

[null and void]

I still wouldn't want to spray DDT around my place where the kids play.

If I still lived in mosquito central, I would. I'd prefer that to West Nile, Polio, VEE, Lyme, and any other of a host of insect borne diseases.

[krb]

I'll also add another though. Is DDT safe or not?

During WWII, DDT was part of the standard issue Soldier/Marine gear that was sprayed around everywhere people went in Europe and in the Pacific.

If even half of what the environmentalist wackos say is true, then there would be no birds left in Europe today.

[aruanan]

the environmental activist-controlled Environmental Protection Agency

More specifically, it wasn't the EPA generally, but a single individual, William Ruckelshaus, who, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, and for ideological (and, it appears, pecuniary) reasons, unilaterally banned DDT, in the process setting himself up to be, as a result of all the deaths that ensued through his environmental wacko bias, responsible for more loss of innocent human life than anyone else in history:

Still, anti-DDT activism led to hearings before an EPA administrative law judge during 1971-72.

After seven months and 9,000 pages of testimony, the judge concluded "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

Despite the exculpatory ruling, then-EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT anyway.

Ruckelshaus never attended the hearings, didn’t read the transcript and refused to release the materials used to make his decision. He even rebuffed a U.S. Department of Agriculture effort to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming they were just "internal memos."

This wasn’t surprising given Ruckleshaus’ bias.

Ruckleshaus belonged to the Environmental Defense Fund, an activist group formed by the National Audubon Society to lobby for its agenda without endangering the Society’s tax-exempt status. That agenda included lobbying against DDT.

After the ban, Ruckelshaus solicited donations for EDF on personal stationery that read, "EDF's scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won."

[Ditto]

"Also I think it was true that DDT softened the shells of ospreys and other birds of prey..."

That is not true at all. It was cooked up junk science from the get go. Click the link for the facts.

[Little Pig]

The whole "softening of eggshells" thing is part of Carson's junk-science "Silent Spring". I believe this has been well-refuted, along with all the other scare stories she propagated. These birds made a comeback because of conservation programs, along with possible assists like the above-mentioned reduction in bird-infesting vermin from DDT use.

Frankly, with West Nile becoming more and more of a problem, I think it is high time to revisit DDT.

[Paradox]

Part of the problem with this type of thinking is that "its the dose that makes the poison". At the levels commonly encountered, DDT is virtually harmless. As others have stated, even in huge doses, it doesn't do much (to humans). Now, there is indication that it might have done some damage to some parts of the ecosphere, but it turns out that the data was faulty, and the conclusions were, quite frankly, falsified in order to promote a political agenda.

[cyborg]

Rachel Carson making mountains out of molehills?