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

Skip to comments.

DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years
Daily Telegraph ^ | originally: 07/19/2001 | Terence Kealey

Posted on 07/03/2002 4:09:24 AM PDT by backhoe


Culture/Society Editorial Editorial
Source: The Telegraph (U.K.)
Published: 07/19/2001 Author: Terence Kealey
Posted on 07/18/2001 16:55:32 PDT by Pokey78

THE World Health Organisation, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the UN environmental programme and its development programme, USAID, and almost all the other international representatives of the great and the good now campaign against DDT.

But, perversely, the Third World still uses it. To those who believe that America under George W Bush and his gas-guzzling, permafrost-drilling accomplices is the source of all global pollution, this Third World defection is disappointing. Where are the virtuous blacks when we need them?

DDT was introduced as an insecticide during the 1940s. In Churchill's words: "The excellent DDT powder has been found to yield astonishing results against insects of all kinds, from lice to mosquitoes."

And astonishing they were. DDT was particularly effective against the anopheles mosquito, which is the carrier of malaria, and people once hoped that DDT would eradicate malaria worldwide. Consider Sri Lanka. In 1946, it had three million cases, but the introduction of DDT reduced the numbers, by 1964, to only 29. In India, the numbers of malaria cases fell from 75 million to around 50,000.

But, in 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, the book that launched the environmental movement. In that book, Carson showed how DDT was imperilling wildlife, particularly predators at the top of the food chain that accumulated the chemical in their fat and in their thinning egg shells.

Within a decade, the developed countries had banned DDT, as did some developing countries, to the detriment of their health. In Sri Lanka, cases of malaria soon rose to 500,000. Worldwide, malaria has returned with a vengeance, accounting annually for 300 million cases and, sadly, one million deaths, mainly of children.

As the Third World now knows, there is no ready substitute for DDT. The spraying of houses with DDT prevents malaria because most people are infected after dusk as they sleep indoors. DDT permeates the walls of buildings, and a single spray will provide indoor protection for months.

Other chemicals are available, but they are generally less effective, shorter-acting and - most importantly for the Third World - more expensive. And DDT is extraordinarily safe for humans. Prof Kenneth Mellanby lectured on it for more than 40 years, and during each lecture he would eat a pinch.

Nor need DDT imperil wildlife. The destruction that Carson described was caused by the agricultural use of DDT as a mass insecticide in vast quantities on crops. But the discriminating application of DDT indoors involves only a tiny, contained, environmentally tolerable, reversible fraction of the dose. That is why some international health (as opposed to environmental) agencies, including Unicef, still support the judicious use of DTT. Even the WHO is now softening its stance.

Malaria was once endemic in Britain. Cromwell died of it and both Pepys and Shakespeare described it. Until the 1930s, it was still active in Essex. But we are lucky in our frosty climate, which kills anopheles, and we have eradicated the disease. Yet Greenpeace and other environmental agencies resist the appropriate use of DDT in the tropics.

Politics has long bedevilled malaria. Its first effective cure was quinine, which was discovered by Jesuit missionaries in South America during the 1630s, but for decades Protestants preferred to die rather than swallow "Jesuit's Powder". Today, Third World health is endangered by comfortable Western environmentalists, some of whom, discreetly, view black natives as threats to the local wildlife.

Supporting those black natives, however, are two researchers, Richard Tren and Roger Bate, whose Malaria and the DDT Story, recently published by the Institute for Economic Affairs in London, shows how to foster both a healthier and an environmentally friendlier Third World. Greenpeace, in its self-assurance, embodies a contemporary cultural imperialism as offensive as any Jesuit's.


1 Posted on 07/18/2001 16:55:32 PDT by Pokey78


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: ddt; deathcultivation; malaria; pesticides; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-133 next last
Since we can't bump older articles, I'm re-posting this for all to read.

After heavy rains here in south Georgia, we are plagued by swarms of mosquetoes- and nothing currently legal to use seems to faze them.

I long for the days of DDT.
( Drop Dead Twice... )

1 posted on 07/03/2002 4:09:24 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
A little more on this and other frauds:

Scams, Scalawags, and an all-too-gullible Public...famous frauds sold to America

2 posted on 07/03/2002 4:10:42 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
whadaya know...
3 posted on 07/03/2002 4:25:55 AM PDT by Aaron_A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aaron_A
Thanks for looking- growing up in the South in the 1950's, I recall DDT as a Godsend- you sprayed it, bugs died. We used to look foreward to the county truck coming around because it meant we could play outside instead of bugging our parents.
4 posted on 07/03/2002 4:40:08 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
I remember those ddt spraying trucks as well.
5 posted on 07/03/2002 4:43:07 AM PDT by Aaron_A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aaron_A
We used to run through the spray because ( as children will do ) we thought it was "good for you..."
6 posted on 07/03/2002 4:48:00 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
I too remember those ddt trucks. I wonder if the spray is the cause of the immune system disorders of myself and 5 siblings.
7 posted on 07/03/2002 4:49:53 AM PDT by not-an-ostrich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
I remember my mom yelling at us to get inside...
8 posted on 07/03/2002 4:52:08 AM PDT by Aaron_A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
My brother and I came home with head lice in the early '50's, and my Mom got a small can that she sprinkled on our heads and beds and wiped them out. Carson and her sycophants have caused more misery and harm to the earth's populous than anything else before or since.

9 posted on 07/03/2002 5:02:51 AM PDT by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
...DDT is Safe...

Who cares?
What's a few million lives protected from disease if we might have saved a few birds?

(/sarcasm)

10 posted on 07/03/2002 5:08:20 AM PDT by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: not-an-ostrich
The short answer is no.
11 posted on 07/03/2002 5:53:44 AM PDT by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Most of the insecticide deaths of crop dusters and farmers would not have happened if DDT had not been banned. But the bald eagle and peregrine falcons are increasing in numbers.
12 posted on 07/03/2002 5:57:22 AM PDT by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
>>>To those who believe that America under George W Bush and his gas-guzzling, permafrost-drilling accomplices is the source of all global pollution, this Third World defection is disappointing. Where are the virtuous blacks when we need them? <<<

Could someone please translate the use of that term from English to American? Thanks

13 posted on 07/03/2002 5:57:35 AM PDT by Tourist Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
In addition to the needless human deaths from malaria as a result of the ban on DDT, there is considerable economic costs to the over burdened US economy as well. What is the annual cost of termite inspections, treatments, and costs to repair termite damage in the US? A house treated once with DDT for termites, is termite-proof for the next five thousand years. Those of you who live in the south are familiar with fire ants. What are the costs to wildlife because of the fire ant invasion. My quail hunting buddies don't hunt much anymore because they claim fire ants eat the baby quail before they are large enough to defend themselves. Anybody remember something called the "law of unintended consequences"?
14 posted on 07/03/2002 6:04:44 AM PDT by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Deja vu bump. A good friend's grandfather used to sell farm chemicals, and one of his sales techniques was to drink a glass of water with DDT mixed in it. He was still functioning into his 80's.

I think mosquitoes avoided him too.

15 posted on 07/03/2002 6:23:44 AM PDT by niteowl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edskid
I think mosquitoes avoided him too.

I have noticed that effect when I used to dip my hands in solvent a lot- bugs don't seem to like the way you taste or smell.

16 posted on 07/03/2002 7:03:51 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: B. A. Conservative
I have read- I think in the DDT links in that "Scams, Scalawags..." link- that 1 to 2 million people die every year worldwide from insect-bourne diseases and that these could be prevented by using insecticides now banned.
17 posted on 07/03/2002 7:06:59 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Oh, it used to be common practice to dump DDT all over a person who was badly infested with parasites- and as far as I can tell, it never harmed the recipient.
18 posted on 07/03/2002 7:10:37 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nina0113
ping
19 posted on 07/03/2002 7:25:10 AM PDT by Steve1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
If you want to get full benefit from eatin' DDT, it's best to sprinkle some on the dioxin-laden Ben & Jerry's ice cream.....
20 posted on 07/03/2002 7:27:15 AM PDT by Jay W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
In the 40s we used to barbecue and eat outside most of the time durring the summer and it was my job to spray DDT before we had dinner with a flit gun and I loved the smell of it. It was a daily routine for years and I sure haven't had any ill effects from it, in fact I haven't been sick for 57 years and have never had the flu so maybe it helped develop a better immune system.
21 posted on 07/03/2002 7:32:51 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: Jay W
I'd be interested in sprinkling DDT on Ben & Jerry to see if they are actually insectoid life-forms...
23 posted on 07/03/2002 9:53:09 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
We used to put "somekinda" additive in the lawnmower gas that killed the bejesus out of skeeters, gnats, and horseflies, and I'd bet it was DDT!
24 posted on 07/03/2002 9:55:49 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
100 things you should know about DDT
25 posted on 07/03/2002 10:01:40 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shigure
May Rachael Carson and her ilk burn in Hell.

I don't disagreee... the human toll of this early, fraudulent story has been horrible.

There have been over the years a series of scams that managed-- partly by dumb luck, partly with the help of a lazy, gullible media, and partly by the public's willingness to put too much stock in what they see on the TV-- to become "the accepted wisdom."

Freon was one, asbestos another, and perhaps the alleged dangers of nuclear power yet another. The Corvair also comes to mind- by the time Nader's book was published, the "tuck-under" problem had been corrected, but perception is everything, and bad perception killed the Corvair.

All those, however, were sort of a nuisance, a bother, an expense- but didn't kill people.

The effects of banning DDT on the basis of dubious science, however, left a toll of dead people behind it.

26 posted on 07/03/2002 10:04:09 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Appreciate the link!

You know, maybe we can turn this thing around, with the speed and ease of information retrieval on the web. I know I stewed in silence over Freon because I had no easy way ( the pre-1996 era, before the ban ) to show people how badly they were being conned.

Maybe enough people will see this information and realize they were swindled.

27 posted on 07/03/2002 10:08:55 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
It is a well established fact that DDT destroyed the egg shells of a wide range of birds including the bald eagle, our nation's symbol of freedom.

If I have to swat a few bugs in order for my kids to be able to see an eagle soaring across the sky, so be it.

Not all chemical compounds are safe. That's why DDT was banned. Wake up and smell the coffee and let's move on to some real issues.

28 posted on 07/03/2002 10:14:37 AM PDT by eagleninja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Aaron_A
"Nor need DDT imperil wildlife. The destruction that Carson described was caused by the agricultural use of DDT as a mass insecticide in vast quantities on crops. But the discriminating application of DDT indoors involves only a tiny, contained, environmentally tolerable, reversible fraction of the dose. That is why some international health (as opposed to environmental) agencies, including Unicef, still support the judicious use of DTT. Even the WHO is now softening its stance". .......Rachel Carson, when confronted with the fact that she had made up both the epidemiology and the experiments and faked the data replied " My agenda is more important than the truth...." Someone show me reliable information that DDT caused anything like Carson touted...JUNK SCIENCE from the beginning and the US Fish and Wildlife Service is proudly carrying on the traditio0n of the socialist liar Rachel Carson


30 posted on 07/03/2002 11:04:55 AM PDT by chemainus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: eagleninja
It is a well established fact that DDT destroyed the egg shells of a wide range of birds including the bald eagle, our nation's symbol of freedom.

Goebels would be proud. That eggshell myth was debunked back in the 60s, there is no evidence of any kind that the eggs of exposed birds are any more fragile, but of course it gets repeated so often that nobody ever hears the truth. MOF the use of DDT actually caused the population of all species of birds (including the bald eagle) to increase because the biggest killer of birds is insect-borne disease.

31 posted on 07/03/2002 11:10:01 AM PDT by Squawk 8888
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: eagleninja
Here's wishing your kids come down with a nice case of malaria.

Somehow I doubt they'll be able to enjoy the sight of an eagle soaring when they are wracked with cramps. But hey, it'll be worth it, right?

Besides, who cares about all those darkies dying around the world. It isn't your problem is it?

L

32 posted on 07/03/2002 11:12:38 AM PDT by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Rachel Carson needs to be burned at the stake and somebody needs to start passing the formula for DDT around on the internet.

H.L. Mencken had a plan to end prohibition which would have worked had the feds not wised up and ended it themselves when they did. Mencken went to Germany and put himself through the standard course in brewing beer at his own expense and was in the process of teaching five of his friends, on condition that each teach five of HIS friends, on condition that...

The same idea would work with DDT. If everybody did it, the fricking feds couldn't do a damned thing about it.

33 posted on 07/03/2002 11:19:46 AM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"Besides, who cares about all those darkies dying around the world. It isn't your problem is it?"

That comment is out of line and has no place in this sort of discussion.

34 posted on 07/03/2002 11:23:08 AM PDT by StolarStorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: eagleninja
You did read the evidence in those links, didn't you?
35 posted on 07/03/2002 11:23:35 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Squawk 8888; shigure; backhoe
That eggshell myth was debunked back in the 60s, there is no evidence of any kind that the eggs of exposed birds are any more fragile, but of course it gets repeated so often that nobody ever hears the truth. MOF the use of DDT actually caused the population of all species of birds (including the bald eagle) to increase because the biggest killer of birds is insect-borne disease.

Not that there's necessarily a demonstrated cause and effect, but Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon populations have increased greatly since the 60s, since DDT was banned. Since their declining numbers had made these species the prime DDT poster children, on its face the ban seems to have achieved its puropse.

If the DDT banning isn't responsible, what is?




36 posted on 07/03/2002 11:23:47 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Squawk 8888
Your support is appreciated- than you.
37 posted on 07/03/2002 11:25:30 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: eagleninja
If I have to swat a few bugs in order for my kids to be able to see an eagle soaring across the sky, so be it.

A buddy of mine studied under one of America's leading falconry artists, in fact the guy who released the perigrines in Baltimore, and claims that guy said the whole thing about DDT and birds was a bunch of BS.

38 posted on 07/03/2002 11:27:12 AM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: medved
A buddy of mine studied under one of America's leading falconry artists, in fact the guy who released the perigrines in Baltimore, and claims that guy said the whole thing about DDT and birds was a bunch of BS.

Thank you.

Since the results of the first eggshell study could not be duplicated or replicated later, it was obviously something other than DDT causing the problem.

39 posted on 07/03/2002 11:31:24 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
If the DDT banning isn't responsible, what is?

Didn't t become illegal to shoot them, about the same time? Or to build where they nest?

40 posted on 07/03/2002 12:05:50 PM PDT by Steve1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
If the DDT banning isn't responsible, what is?

Habitat protection and restoration. Falcons have done especially well since building owners learned how to make their properties more hospitable- when I was working downtown a family lived under a window on a neighbouring building and watching them catch sparrows mid-air was quite a show.

41 posted on 07/03/2002 12:06:04 PM PDT by Squawk 8888
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Squawk 8888
Habitat protection and restoration. Falcons have done especially well since building owners learned how to make their properties more hospitable- when I was working downtown a family lived under a window on a neighbouring building and watching them catch sparrows mid-air was quite a show.

I've seen falcons in the suburbs where both my brother and mother live, in Orange and San Jose CA. Both of these subdivisions were built before DDT was banned, but there weren't any falcons there until recently.

That falcons do well among skyscrapers is a given. But I've seen falcons roost in skyscrapers that had no special provision for them.

Since skyscrapers and subdivisions existed when falcon populations were in decline, the population of the falcons since then in both urban and suburban envirionments can't be attributed exclusively to habitat preservation or special building provisions.

So, if not them, and not the DDT ban, then what is responsible for the falcons' comeback?




42 posted on 07/03/2002 12:26:09 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
BUMP
43 posted on 07/03/2002 12:49:05 PM PDT by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: eagleninja
"It is a well established fact that DDT destroyed the egg shells of a wide range of birds including the bald eagle, our nation's symbol of freedom."

That's actually a matter of some scientific debate. Counts of bald eagles from 1941 to 1960, the period from DDT introduction to large-scale use, apparently showed bald eagle populations actually increased:

"A comparison of the annual Audubon Christmas Bird Counts between 1941 (pre-DDT) and 1960 (after DDT’s use had waned) reveals that at least 26 different kinds of birds became more numerous during those decades, the period of greatest DDT usage. The Audubon counts document an overall increase in birds seen per observer from 1941 to 1960, and statistical analyses of the Audubon data confirm the perceived increases. For example, only 197 bald eagles were documented in 194111; the number had increased to 891 in 1960.12"

http://www.altgreen.com.au/che micals/ddt.html

"Not all chemical compounds are safe. That's why DDT was banned."

That's definitely incorrect! DDT was banned by William Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the EPA. He banned DDT, despite the fact that DDT had been ruled by a federal judge to be safe, when used appropriately:

"In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. . . . The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. . . . The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”31"

"Wake up and smell the coffee and let's move on to some real issues."

Perhaps it's not a "real issue" to YOU that over 1 million people die every year of malaria, and that DDT could save 10s of thousands, or even 100s of thousands of those lives. It IS an issue to those of us who care about thousands and thousands of people dying needlessly, every year.

DDT has probably saved more lives than any man-made compound ever developed. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated, in 1970: “In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable.”

The people who are actually on the front lines in fighting malaria in the third world are solidly in favor of the continued use of DDT. It's truly a shame that their opinions get so little support.

Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)
44 posted on 07/03/2002 2:03:42 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
"Not that there's necessarily a demonstrated cause and effect, but Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon populations have increased greatly since the 60s, since DDT was banned."

Yes, but bald eagle populations apparently increased from 1941 to 1960 (while DDT was introduced in the 1940s). See my previous post.

Further, there are other chemicals that can cause bird shells to thin (presumably due to insufficient calcium). Lead can cause bird shells to thin. Oil can, too. Mercury can.

http://www.junkscience.com/ddt faq.htm#ref6

Lead started to be removed from gasoline circa 1975, with the introduction of catalytic converters on cars. Lead levels in human blood began to decline at that time (mid-1970s).

Mercury concentrations in the environment have been declining since...well, for at least the last 10 years. Perhaps longer.

Oil spills have dramatically decreased from the 1960s. (Though that doesn't necessarily correlate with oil in the environment, since leaks from automobiles are a larger total source.)

So all of these other chemicals, which have declined in the environment since approximately the same time, may have produced egg shell thinning in wild birds.
45 posted on 07/03/2002 2:20:00 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: StolarStorm
It was completely in line and surely does have a place.

I was pointing up the hypocrisy of the poster I was originally replying to.

All he wants is to be able to see eagles and he doesn't give a rats fat butt about people in third world countries (all predominately black by the way) dying from easily preventable diseases.

It's called sarcasm. You might want to look it up.

L

46 posted on 07/03/2002 3:20:35 PM PDT by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: backhoe
If you've ever watched the film footage or seen photos of the concentration camps being liberated in WWII Germany, you'll see the GIs dumping vast quantities of white powder which if my memory serves me was talcum powder and some percentage of DDT (10%, I think). You'll note that no one has come forward saying that DDT was killing thousands of survivors. If people who are starving and whose immune system is probably in pretty bad shape aren't affected, I'd say that it, if used properly has virtually no effect on humans.

For the falcons and birds issue, Stephen Milloy at www.junkscience.com has written some very good articles about DDT and birds.
48 posted on 07/03/2002 3:32:21 PM PDT by historian1944
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mfumento
A ping if you are still lurking.
49 posted on 07/03/2002 3:40:25 PM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shigure
Ironic, isn't it, that the two greatest lifesavers of this century, DDT and bioengineered food (see: Norman Borlaug), are considered evil by the environmentalists.

This single fact tells you exactly how important they hold human life.

50 posted on 07/03/2002 3:56:32 PM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-133 next last

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