Comments on: DDT, Junk Science, Malaria, and the attack on Rachel Carson http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/ Entomology. Gardening. Ranting. Nerdery. Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:45:31 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: THE NEW REPUBLIC | Blogs http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-18246 THE NEW REPUBLIC | Blogs Thu, 15 May 2008 19:27:26 +0000 http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-18246 [...] no grand conspiracy here, it's just that eradicating malaria is a bit more complicated than The Wall Street Journal's editorial page would have us [...] [...] no grand conspiracy here, it's just that eradicating malaria is a bit more complicated than The Wall Street Journal's editorial page would have us [...]

]]> By: melanie http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-17373 melanie Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:44:03 +0000 http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-17373 i love this i love this

]]> By: Bug Girl http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1791 Bug Girl Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:31:29 +0000 http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1791 I agree with you Ken, but I don't think that I'm going to convince many people that don't *<em>already</em>* have a belief in the intrinsic value of nature by presenting that evidence. Most of the folks arguing for DDT are strict utilitarianists. Many of them say openly a few fish and birds is a small price to pay for preventing a terrible human disease. (It's hard to disagree if you've ever seen a child struggling with malarial fever.) It's an emotional argument, and asking for careful long term thinking about global consequences (as you are doing) probably isn't going to work. Even if that's what we <em>should</em> do :) I do make the point that DDT isn't a panacea in the 2nd post in this series: <strong>DDT and insecticide resistance</strong> http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/ddt-malaria-insecticide-resistance/ I have been busy, but will work on the 3rd part, human health issues, this weekend. Personally, I think the fact that DDT bioaccumulates, and that is a <strong>bad thing</strong>, is so self evident, I don't see value in covering it. I agree with you Ken, but I don’t think that I’m going to convince many people that don’t *<em>already</em>* have a belief in the intrinsic value of nature by presenting that evidence.
Most of the folks arguing for DDT are strict utilitarianists. Many of them say openly a few fish and birds is a small price to pay for preventing a terrible human disease. (It’s hard to disagree if you’ve ever seen a child struggling with malarial fever.)
It’s an emotional argument, and asking for careful long term thinking about global consequences (as you are doing) probably isn’t going to work. Even if that’s what we <em>should</em> do :)
I do make the point that DDT isn’t a panacea in the 2nd post in this series:
<strong>DDT and insecticide resistance</strong>
http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/ddt-malaria-insecticide-resistance/
I have been busy, but will work on the 3rd part, human health issues, this weekend.
Personally, I think the fact that DDT bioaccumulates, and that is a bad thing, is so self evident, I don’t see value in covering it.

]]> By: ken slamin http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1787 ken slamin Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:35:26 +0000 http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1787 Not a scientist, but I'm old enough to have witnessed the relatively fast recovery of Bald Eagles, Ospreys and Brown Pelicans from severe declines in the U.S. after DDT was banned. Without doubt, lipophillic poisons do harm people and animals wherever they are used, through bioaccumulation. Not only are the top food-chain organisms effected, but also simpler ones such as arbuscular mycorrhiza, which are very important to food crops and land flora in general. Yet absolutely no pesticide is a panacea, nor species-specific. Not to devalue human life; I'm still staking hopes in a malaria vaccine, still a few years off. (Since I'm not proving any points nor providing sources, it's better that I end this post, before I really show my passion....) Not a scientist, but I’m old enough to have witnessed the relatively fast recovery of Bald Eagles, Ospreys and Brown Pelicans from severe declines in the U.S. after DDT was banned. Without doubt, lipophillic poisons do harm people and animals wherever they are used, through bioaccumulation. Not only are the top food-chain organisms effected, but also simpler ones such as arbuscular mycorrhiza, which are very important to food crops and land flora in general. Yet absolutely no pesticide is a panacea, nor species-specific. Not to devalue human life; I’m still staking hopes in a malaria vaccine, still a few years off.

(Since I’m not proving any points nor providing sources, it’s better that I end this post, before I really show my passion….)

]]> By: Malaria & DDT: The Usual Wingnut Attack Dog M.O. » The Adventures of Tobasco da Gama http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1679 Malaria & DDT: The Usual Wingnut Attack Dog M.O. » The Adventures of Tobasco da Gama Sat, 23 Jun 2007 02:39:20 +0000 http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1679 [...] Girl, regular contributor to the Skepchick blog, documents a new one (to me, at least). Apparently, anti-environmentalist wingnuts have been attacking Rachel [...] [...] Girl, regular contributor to the Skepchick blog, documents a new one (to me, at least). Apparently, anti-environmentalist wingnuts have been attacking Rachel [...]

]]> By: Bug Girl http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1607 Bug Girl Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:34:05 +0000 http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1607 Dr. Buzz. you clearly missed the second part of the post (where I discuss insecticide resistance) and where I reiterate that I am not calling for a ban, just cautious use. Which seems exactly what you are asking for. Sigh. Dr. Buzz. you clearly missed the second part of the post (where I discuss insecticide resistance) and where I reiterate that I am not calling for a ban, just cautious use.

Which seems exactly what you are asking for.

Sigh.

]]> By: Drbuzz0 http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1597 Drbuzz0 Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:27:02 +0000 http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1597 While I do agree (to some degree) that the claims DDT would solve all the malaria problems in the world and save millions are inflated, I still cannot condone the dissemination of inaccurate information on DDT or any scientific matter, which Ms. Carson is IMHO guilty of. Let me take on a few of these things: DDT is a highly effective insectaside which has proven to be safe for humans, and numerous studies have failed to show a consistent and significant link to cancer. There have been several studies which have shown that even extremely high chronic doses in humans result in relatively small health affects. And these doses are far less than what would be expected in a general population of an area using DDT. DDT may have affects on the egg shells of birds, but does this mean that it should be banned, or even banned in many situations? For one thing, the degree of affect is not established and it certainly is not the sort of thing that would wipe out a bird population in a short time. This means that it's use should be limited in areas with endangered bird species, that it should be monitored and that measures should be taken to prevent or limit the runoff into bodies of still water, where it's chemical half-life and tendency to collect in organisms can cuase issues. And as far as resistance? DDT is not a magic bullet, but it's been demonized far too much. The best tactic in combating evolving resistance in organisms is to be sure you have a well-stocked arsenal of control measures. Taking DDT off the table is not justified and not prudent, even if it is not a silver bullet. My biggest problem is that it has been demonized so badly that most people, not even knowing much about it, assume it has been proven to be very dangerous to human health. The average person upon hearing the letters DDT may say something like "Isn't that that horrible cancer causing insectaside that they banned along with asbestos and plutonium? Only worse?" I realize bug-girl likes bigs and DDT kills bugs and it's overuse can be dangerous to an ecosystem. But despite her love for insects, that does not change the fact that there are plenty of times when insects are a major health problem for humans or can cause massive damage to crops etc. There is one thing thats pretty hard to escape: Sometimes you gotta kill some insects Ps. I know there are not any citations here, but I am actually working on a posting to my own blog on this same issue which willhave much more info than i have off the top of my head now. While I do agree (to some degree) that the claims DDT would solve all the malaria problems in the world and save millions are inflated, I still cannot condone the dissemination of inaccurate information on DDT or any scientific matter, which Ms. Carson is IMHO guilty of.

Let me take on a few of these things:

DDT is a highly effective insectaside which has proven to be safe for humans, and numerous studies have failed to show a consistent and significant link to cancer. There have been several studies which have shown that even extremely high chronic doses in humans result in relatively small health affects. And these doses are far less than what would be expected in a general population of an area using DDT.

DDT may have affects on the egg shells of birds, but does this mean that it should be banned, or even banned in many situations? For one thing, the degree of affect is not established and it certainly is not the sort of thing that would wipe out a bird population in a short time.

This means that it’s use should be limited in areas with endangered bird species, that it should be monitored and that measures should be taken to prevent or limit the runoff into bodies of still water, where it’s chemical half-life and tendency to collect in organisms can cuase issues.

And as far as resistance? DDT is not a magic bullet, but it’s been demonized far too much. The best tactic in combating evolving resistance in organisms is to be sure you have a well-stocked arsenal of control measures. Taking DDT off the table is not justified and not prudent, even if it is not a silver bullet.

My biggest problem is that it has been demonized so badly that most people, not even knowing much about it, assume it has been proven to be very dangerous to human health. The average person upon hearing the letters DDT may say something like “Isn’t that that horrible cancer causing insectaside that they banned along with asbestos and plutonium? Only worse?”

I realize bug-girl likes bigs and DDT kills bugs and it’s overuse can be dangerous to an ecosystem. But despite her love for insects, that does not change the fact that there are plenty of times when insects are a major health problem for humans or can cause massive damage to crops etc.

There is one thing thats pretty hard to escape: Sometimes you gotta kill some insects

Ps. I know there are not any citations here, but I am actually working on a posting to my own blog on this same issue which willhave much more info than i have off the top of my head now.

]]> By: Bug Girl http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1582 Bug Girl Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:18:59 +0000 http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1582 I think you missed this part of the post: http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/ddt-malaria-insecticide-resistance/ I think you missed this part of the post:

http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/ddt-malaria-insecticide-resistance/

]]> By: Valuethinker http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1578 Valuethinker Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:57:32 +0000 http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1578 Can I make a plea for the natural environment in this? It seems to me that if we invent a chemical, call it DDT, which is persistent and long lived in the environment (say 40 years and counting) and we know that it concentrates in the food chain and leads to the deaths of birds, and maybe mammals (the former is certainly true) that we ought not to use that chemical? If the consequence of spraying DDT is the death and extinction of numerous bird species, isn't that a greater cost than any benefit we could secure from it? Particularly in light of the fact that we know mass DDT spraying was ineffective in controlling malaria (due to the development of malaria-resistant insects)? Can I make a plea for the natural environment in this?

It seems to me that if we invent a chemical, call it DDT, which is persistent and long lived in the environment (say 40 years and counting) and we know that it concentrates in the food chain and leads to the deaths of birds, and maybe mammals (the former is certainly true)

that we ought not to use that chemical?

If the consequence of spraying DDT is the death and extinction of numerous bird species, isn’t that a greater cost than any benefit we could secure from it?

Particularly in light of the fact that we know mass DDT spraying was ineffective in controlling malaria (due to the development of malaria-resistant insects)?

]]> By: Something stinks over at National Geographic… « Laelaps http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1545 Something stinks over at National Geographic… « Laelaps Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:46:29 +0000 http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/#comment-1545 [...] and the attack on Rachel Carson New York Times, DDT, and an asshole Rachel Carson and Chemical News DDT, Junk Science, Malaria, and the attack on Rachel Carson Malarial Drug Resistance: exciting new [...] [...] and the attack on Rachel Carson New York Times, DDT, and an asshole Rachel Carson and Chemical News DDT, Junk Science, Malaria, and the attack on Rachel Carson Malarial Drug Resistance: exciting new [...]

]]>