Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BRING BACK DDT (Michelle Malkin showcases articles from four thoughtful advocates)
Michelle Malkin's Blog ^ | January 8, 2005 | Michelle Malkin

Posted on 01/08/2005 10:39:34 AM PST by Stoat

BRING BACK DDT

 

By Michelle Malkin   ·   January 08, 2005 11:02 AM

 

Bravo for New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who calls today for DDT to be sprayed in malaria-ravaged countries. Here's the intro:
If the U.S. wants to help people in tsunami-hit countries like Sri Lanka and Indonesia - not to mention other poor countries in Africa - there's one step that would cost us nothing and would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

It would be to allow DDT in malaria-ravaged countries.

I'm thrilled that we're pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the relief effort, but the tsunami was only a blip in third-world mortality. Mosquitoes kill 20 times more people each year than the tsunami did, and in the long war between humans and mosquitoes it looks as if mosquitoes are winning.

One reason is that the U.S. and other rich countries are siding with the mosquitoes against the world's poor - by opposing the use of DDT.

"It's a colossal tragedy," says Donald Roberts, a professor of tropical public health at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. "And it's embroiled in environmental politics and incompetent bureaucracies..."

 

Science journalist Mike Fumento, among many other rational, anti-junk science researchers on the opposite side of the aisle, has been arguing this for years. Fumento reported in a piece five days before Kristof's article was published:

Malaria and dengue fever, both carried by mosquitoes, are already endemic in many of the affected areas and disease levels could dramatically increase as they breed in the countless pools of stagnant water left behind by the waves. Mosquitoes that carry malaria come out at night, those that carry dengue by day. They thus kill around the clock.

Draining the pools would be terribly laborious, especially since mosquitoes can breed in nothing more than a footprint. The best answer would be spraying with DDT. Unfortunately, environmentalists have demonized DDT based essentially on unfounded accusations in a 1962 book, Silent Spring.

Yet notes Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperialism and senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality, "DDT is not only probably the most effective mosquito killer on earth, it's also been tested for literally decades and has never been shown to harm people." It's questionable whether it even has any impact on the environment. There are other insecticides available, Driessen observes, but "they don't have the repellency of DDT and a single DDT spraying lasts six months."

He says DDT should be sprayed on water pools, tents, and on people themselves — as indeed was once common in Sri Lanka and throughout most of the world. "We need to ignore the environmentalists and concentrate on immediate health dangers," he says...

 

Environmentalists have posed as saviors of the Earth and humanity. But behind their opposition to DDT lie darker motives. Dr. Walter Williams points out:

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."

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.

 

Yes, one really does wonder.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ddt; environment; environmentalism; malkin; michaelfumento; michellemalkin; nicholaskristof; pauldriessen; quake; tsunami; walterwilliams


1 posted on 01/08/2005 10:39:35 AM PST by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Good source for details:
www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

Also;
The Skeptical Environmentalist
Bjorn Lomborg

State of Fear
Michael Crichton


2 posted on 01/08/2005 10:45:29 AM PST by G Larry (Admiral James Woolsey as National Intelligence Director)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

The umpteenth reason why the term "enviromentalist whacko" is a good one!


3 posted on 01/08/2005 10:47:03 AM PST by The Teen Conservative (Taglines really get me worked up to write something in them for nothin', y'know?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat; cpforlife.org; Mr. Silverback

Bravo Michelle, for exposing the population control agenda. My grandmother sprayed her garden with DDT for years. She lived to 94.


4 posted on 01/08/2005 10:49:28 AM PST by NYer ("In good times we enjoy faith, in bad times we exercise faith." ... Mother Angelica)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Is there anything to the conspiracy theory that NOT spraying with DDT is an effort to control population in the poorest areas of the world?


5 posted on 01/08/2005 10:51:38 AM PST by msnimje
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Idiot Hollywood actors helped rid the world of DDT, didn't they? They have the death of millions on their hands.

Oh, and the reason your air conditioner works like crap too is because of the ban on Flourocarbons. This one is even easier to figure out- the patent on the best refrigerant in the world was running out- which would have cost the company BILLIONS - so guess who makes the next best (and much more corrosive) substitute.


6 posted on 01/08/2005 10:53:28 AM PST by Mr. K (all your tagline are belong to us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
Ms. Malkin is correct; we should re-introduce DDT spraying for the malaria belt.

This topic is recently coming up more often, and she and Mr. Kristof are to be applauded for supporting this entirely sensible idea.

7 posted on 01/08/2005 10:54:28 AM PST by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Michelle hits the nail on the head. Thus, it is doubtful DDT will be used in the forseeable future.


8 posted on 01/08/2005 10:55:34 AM PST by TAdams8591 (It ceases to be OUR charity when the GOVERNMENT gives it away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

bttt


9 posted on 01/08/2005 10:56:19 AM PST by ConservativeMan55 (DON'T FIRE UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THE CURTAINS THEY ARE WEARING ON THEIR HEADS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

A proven theory...!

>Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]<


10 posted on 01/08/2005 10:57:21 AM PST by G Larry (Admiral James Woolsey as National Intelligence Director)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend


11 posted on 01/08/2005 11:02:35 AM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

I'll take her over that emaciated beanpole Ann Coulter any day of the week.

12 posted on 01/08/2005 11:04:32 AM PST by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

A quick look at leftist policies and beliefs shows that it's always been about keeping "undesirables" away. From bribing them to sit at home in their ghettos to abortion and outright purges, it's NIMBYism and eugenics at its finest.


13 posted on 01/08/2005 11:05:19 AM PST by randog (What the....?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
If the U.S. wants to help people in tsunami-hit countries like Sri Lanka and Indonesia - not to mention other poor countries in Africa - there's one step that would cost us nothing and would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

It would be to allow DDT in malaria-ravaged countries.

How does the US stop Sri Lanka and other countries from spraying DDT?

14 posted on 01/08/2005 11:07:40 AM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I appreciate all of the thoughtful commentary! :-)

I am guessing that the reintroduction of DDT will be a non-starter for reasons brought forth by others, as well as:

The banning of DDT was one of the major foundations of the modern environmentalist movement....their Holy Grail, if you will. The ban emboldened the Left with an enhanced sense of power, and any attempt to reintroduce it will be fought like a drowning man fights for air.

The region affected by the Tsunami includes areas notorious for containing militant Islamists. They will seize upon this as 'chemical warfare' being directed against them and will use it as license to unleash biotoxins against the West (although they don't exactly need any additional rationale for this, such a move would give them political cover among their less-radical constituency)

Millions will sicken and die needlessly as a result.

May God help us all....


15 posted on 01/08/2005 11:09:47 AM PST by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]

A well received book, apparently:

http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/backlist/031008.htm

16 posted on 01/08/2005 11:12:05 AM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
How does the US stop Sri Lanka and other countries from spraying DDT?
 

Do these countries even have stockpiles of DDT, or even the means by which to disperse it on such a massive scale?  Once again, only the US has the means to get such a meaningful thing done.  Sadly, I believe that it will once again be thwarted due entirely to irrelevant political reasons rather than any sound scientific ones.

17 posted on 01/08/2005 11:13:13 AM PST by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
The region affected by the Tsunami includes areas notorious for containing militant Islamists. They will seize upon this as 'chemical warfare' being directed against them and will use it as license to unleash biotoxins against the West (although they don't exactly need any additional rationale for this, such a move would give them political cover among their less-radical constituency)

So confuse them by revealing the infidel plot to suppress DDT spraying.

After all, Muslims invented DDT.

18 posted on 01/08/2005 11:15:14 AM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: secretagent

ROTFL! Good plan :-)


19 posted on 01/08/2005 11:17:05 AM PST by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
I doubt an active patent on DDT limits its production.

I'll guess that the countries' own western-educated elites suppress its use.

Or foreign aid depends on banning DDT.

20 posted on 01/08/2005 11:23:21 AM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
W.H.O. got the U.S. to ban DDT production, but why did that stop other countries from making their own DDT?:

In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a book that falsely alleged that DDT was causing great harm to humans, beneficial animals, and the environment. The hysteria generated by Carson and her disciples forced bans on DDT that have resulted in hundreds of millions of human deaths – and human suffering beyond the ability of statistics to reveal.

The campaign Carson launched hit hard at the war on malaria, causing it to falter. In 1967, the World Health Organization changed its goal from worldwide "eradication" of malaria to "control of the disease, where possible." Some 63 participating countries, which had already spent considerable sums on the fight, simply gave up the battle.

A resolution was approved by a large number of concerned scientists at the 22nd session of the WHO Assembly in Southeast Asia in 1969 urging manufacturers of DDT to "continue producing the life-saving insecticide so that they could continue to protect citizens from malaria." A ban on the production of DDT in the United States, they said, would deny the use of DDT to most of the malarious areas of the world. The direct result of such a denial would be "to bring down upon the afflicted countries hundreds of millions of cases of malaria, and millions of human deaths from malaria within the next decade."

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Killer.html - An info-rich article by:

Gordon Edwards, professor emeritus of entomology at San Jose State University in California, has taught biology and entomology there for 44 years. He is a long-time member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society and is a lifetime fellow of the California Academy of Sciences. He is the author of several ornithological articles published by the Audubon Society and other environmental groups.

21 posted on 01/08/2005 11:39:52 AM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
For another view, this sample:

The eradication program ended not because of any environmental concerns, but because it did not work. The mosquitoes had grown resistant to insecticides, and the microorganisms that cause malaria had become resistant to the drugs used against them. In many areas the numbers of cases of malaria greatly exceeded what it was before the effort was started. If events had been different, if DDT had not been used heavily in agriculture and there was no shortage of funds the outcome might have been different. Malaria might have joined smallpox as a disease that had been eliminated from the face of the earth. Unfortunately, such was not the case. As early as 1967 it was clear that the effort had failed, and in 1972 the official policy shifted from eradication to control of malaria.

http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm

22 posted on 01/08/2005 11:56:45 AM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
interesting point....I always wondered WHO saved "us" by making it a law that we had to replace each and every barbecue gas tank with the new model...not to mention adding insult to injury by charging a fee to get rid of the old "killer" type...
23 posted on 01/08/2005 12:26:05 PM PST by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Here's another great article on this subject, http://www.juntosociety.com/monty/mrwnv.html


24 posted on 01/08/2005 12:37:20 PM PST by stoney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
I can't find a mechanism whereby mosquitoes became resistant to DDT to the extent that the authors you quote proclaimed (Chapin & Wasserstrom); beyond that I can't find support for their statements that spraying actually increased incidence of infection.

The easily found evidence for worldwide outbreaks post-spraying are widely available and the newer methods of "control" are ineffective wherever they are used.

Don't think I am speaking with the voice of compassion here but only to ask if you have more data you might like to share or are you just Googling?

25 posted on 01/08/2005 12:47:18 PM PST by Old Professer (When the fear of dying no longer obtains no act is unimaginable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

"Resistance" may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/physiological mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas where DDT has been applied -- this still reduces mosquito-human contact. "This avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raise serious questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of malaria."

[See, e.g., J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1998 Dec;14(4):410-20; and Am J Trop Med Hyg 1994;50(6 Suppl):21-34]


26 posted on 01/08/2005 1:01:24 PM PST by G Larry (Admiral James Woolsey as National Intelligence Director)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

I believe a great deal of reliance on the work of C&W was due to policy rather than science and we all know how politicians are loathe to admit mistake.


27 posted on 01/08/2005 1:27:37 PM PST by Old Professer (When the fear of dying no longer obtains no act is unimaginable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Stoat; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
28 posted on 01/08/2005 2:25:58 PM PST by farmfriend ( Congratulation. You are everything we've come to expect from years of government training.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

I'd thought about the "Sons of Silent Spring" getting hysterical, but not about the Muslim radicals. Good point.


29 posted on 01/08/2005 2:27:52 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
Beyond the human toll are the economic consequences, which help keep these nations in poverty's tight grip. It's been estimated that malaria costs Africa 1.2% of its GDP, or some $12 billion annually. The pandemic compromises the educational development of the children it doesn't kill, and it depletes the mental and physical vigor of the adult population.

The saddest aspect of this tragedy may be that making things right isn't that complicated or expensive. We have the means and the know-how. What's missing is the political will. HIV infections are a fraction of malaria's, but the former affects more people in the West, where advocates see to it that foreign aid budgets keep AIDS front and center. Third World victims of malaria don't have lobbyists and Hollywood A-listers calling attention to their situation.

But the bigger problem is the politicized international health agencies that discourage the employment of all available tools of prevention -- specifically insecticides containing DDT that is anathema to environmentalists. Bed nets and preventive medicines play important roles, but spraying homes with pesticides is vital. Use of DDT, developed during World War II and the main reason that America and Europe no longer harbor malarial mosquitoes, has been most successful in containing the disease. Still, influential groups like the U.S. Agency for International Development want DDT left out of malaria-control efforts.

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas noted the hypocrisy of this position at a subcommittee hearing in October. AID "refuses to support and endorse the use of insecticides," said the Senator, "even when used in small amounts -- much smaller than the mass, airborne spraying that the U.S. implemented to eliminate its own malaria problem decades ago."

This ideological opposition to synthetic chemicals has no basis in science -- there is no evidence that the pesticide harms humans or causes widespread damage to nature -- but it amounts to a death sentence for millions of African women and children. When South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996 at the urging of environmentalists, malaria cases rose from 6,000 in 1995 to 60,000 in 2000. DDT use resumed in 2000 in the country's worst-hit province, KwaZulu Natal, and malaria cases fell by nearly 80% by 2001. Zambia, one of Africa's poorest countries, also saw a tremendous drop in malaria cases when insecticide-spraying was reintroduced four years ago. Today, DDT is protecting a Zambian population of 360,000 at a cost of about $6 per household.

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/news.php

Ironic. AIDS drugs have tremendous proven negative side-effects but no one says don't use them because they are dangerous. Even if one believes DDT (not proven)has harmful effects the alternative is clearly worse. Kudos to Sen Brownback who once again seems to be the leading voice of sensible caring in the US Congress.

30 posted on 01/08/2005 2:42:06 PM PST by dervish (Europe can go to Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

I wouldn't doubt it since the envirowackos view humans as mere pests on the earth.


31 posted on 01/08/2005 3:13:17 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (God is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stoat; 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Agitate; Alouette; Annie03; aposiopetic; attagirl; axel f; ...

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

32 posted on 01/08/2005 5:22:23 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (A mike ruler, an old schooler...drivin' in my car, livin' like a star...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

bttt


33 posted on 01/08/2005 6:25:51 PM PST by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

For those of us old enough to remember, we saw newsreels of concentration camp survivors being "dusted" with DDT. I haven't heard of any of them dying from it.


34 posted on 01/08/2005 6:33:19 PM PST by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

Just Googling until Freepers with some knowledge, like you, showed up.


35 posted on 01/08/2005 6:59:55 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
Eliminating DDT brings profits to certain industries:

Without doubt, the insecticide and pharmaceutical industries have received direct benefits from DDT elimination. The former industry has benefited because countries purchased more expensive insecticides and the latter benefited from selling more drugs to treat an ever-increasing number of malaria cases.

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

36 posted on 01/08/2005 7:15:19 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend

BTTT!!!!!!


37 posted on 01/09/2005 3:06:03 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
John Stossel tackled this in Tampering with Nature. Lots of third-world countries with deadly diseases carried by mosquitoes would love to have DDT.
38 posted on 01/09/2005 6:55:29 PM PST by GenXFreedomFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson