Engineer Indur Goklany, a frequent contributor to WUWT and occasional commenter has more than a few things to say about commenter Ed Darrell’s views on Malaria posted on WUWT yesterday. There’s so much in fact, that I’ve dedicated a whole guest post to it. -Anthony
Guest Post by Indur Goklany
Ed Darrell has two sets of comments, one of which, I believe, is fundamentally flawed, and the other I would agree with, at the risk of being accused by Alexander Feht of being obsequious once again (See Alexander’s comment on September 11, 2010 at 11:28 am).
A. Ed Darrell on September 12, 2010 at 7:40 pm, responding to tarpon said:
In 1972, about two million people died from malaria, worldwide.
In 2008, about 880,000 people died from malaria, worldwide. That’s fewer than half the mortality the year the U.S. stopped DDT spraying on cotton.
If it’s cause-effect you were trying to establish, I think you missed.
RESPONSE: The flaws in Ed’s analysis are aplenty.
First, although the US banned DDT in 1972, its use continued in much of the rest of the world. [If I remember correctly, the Swedes had banned it earlier.] In fact, US production of DDT for developing country use continued into the mid-1980s. Also, it took a few years for US environmentalists to ensure that the US domestic ban was — in the best traditions of cultural imperialism and bearing the white man’s burden — exported to other countries [without their (informed) consent, mind you]. [Notably, the US ban was imposed only after malaria had been wiped out in the US for practical purposes. See Figure 13, here.] In addition, countries had stockpiles which they continued to use, and not all developed countries were initially on board with eliminating DDT use worldwide. Furthermore, by 2008 some developing countries that had stopped DDT use had resumed its use. So it is not meaningful to use either 1972 or 2008 as endpoints for developing global estimates for the efficacy (or lack of it) of DDT in dealing with malaria..
Second, while DDT is in many instances the cheapest and most cost-effective method of reducing malaria (where it works, because it doesn’t always work) the death and disease rates are also sensitive to other factors, none of which have remained stationary between 1972 and 2008. These factors include general health status, adequate food and nutrition, public health services, and so on. So, it makes little sense, without adequately accounting for these factors, to compare deaths for malaria (or death rates, which would be more correct) between 1972 and 2008 to say anything about the effectiveness of DDT.
Fortunately, though, we have results of some “policy experiments” which were undertaken inadvertently — undertaken, I note, without the consent of the subjects of these experiments, something that would not be allowed in any hospital in the US, I suspect. These “experiments” allow us to evaluate the benefit of DDT (or lack thereof). As noted here (pp. 7-8) in a paper published a decade ago by Africa Fighting Malaria, it was noted that:
“Given the higher costs and, possibly, the greater efficacy of DDT, it is not surprising that despite the theoretical availability of substitutes, malaria rebounded in many poor areas where (and when) DDT usage was discontinued (WHO 1999a; Roberts 1999, Roberts et al. 1997, Sharma 1996, Whelan 1992, Guarda et al. 1999, Bate 2000). For instance, malaria incidences in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) dropped from 2.8 million in the 1940s to less than 20 in 1963 (WHO 1999a, Whelan 1992). DDT spraying was stopped in 1964, and by 1969 the number of cases had grown to 2.5 million. Similarly, malaria was nearly eradicated in India in the early 1960s, and its resurgence coincided with shortages in DDT (Sharma 1996). The population at high- to medium risk of contracting malaria in Colombia and Peru doubled between 1996 and 1997 (Roberts et al. 2000b). Malaria has also reappeared in several other areas where it had previously been suppressed, if not eradicated (e.g., Madagascar, Swaziland, the two Koreas, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan; Roberts et al. 2000b, and references therein). Similarly, Roberts et al. (1997) showed that Latin American countries (e.g., Ecuador, Belize, Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil and Venezuela) which had discontinued or decreased spraying of DDT inside homes saw malaria rates increase. Guarda et al. (1999) also note that in 1988, when DDT use was discontinued, there were no cases of Plasmodium falciparium reported in Loreto, Peru. The number of cases increased to 140 in 1991. By 1997, there were over 54,000 cases and 85 deaths (see, also, Goklany 2000c).
“But the best argument for indoor-spraying of DDT is that in many areas where malaria experienced a resurgence, reinstating DDT use once again led to declines in malaria cases. For example, Ecuador, which had previously seen its malaria rates rebound once DDT spraying had been reduced, saw those rates decline once again by 61 percent since 1993, when DDT use was increased again (Roberts et al. 1997). The same cycle occurred in Madagascar where the malaria epidemic of 1984-86, which occurred after the suspension of DDT use, killed 100,000 people. After two annual cycles of DDT spraying, malaria incidence declined 90 percent (Roberts et al. 2000b).”
Since then, we have results of the on-again and off-again policy with regard to DDT from KwaZulu-Natal Province in South Africa:
“DDT spraying in that area started in 1946. By 1974, Anopheles funestes, the mosquito species associated with year-round prevalence of malaria in that region, had been eradicated [see Figure below.]. In the 1991/1992 malaria season, the number of malaria cases was around 600 in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). However, in 1996, DDT was replaced by synthetic pyrethroids. In 1999 members of A. funestus were found in houses in KZN that had been sprayed. In 1999/2000, there were more than 40,000 cases in KZN. In 2000, DDT was brought back. By 2002, the number of cases had dropped to 3,500.” Source: Pre-edited version of Goklany (2007), pp.79-180.
See the Figure 1.
I have also provided additional references below, if one is interested in following up.
For a broader discussion, I recommend the chapter, “Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT,” in The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001). A previous version of this chapter is available free at http://goklany.org/library/DDT%20and%20PP.PDF.
Figure 1: From Goklany (2007), based on R. Tren, “IRS & DDT in Africa — past and present successes,” 54th Annual Meeting, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
B. Ed Darrell on September 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm said, “We may not beat malaria by 2014, but it won’t be because the Gates Foundation is on the wrong path.”
RESPONSE: I agree. For a long time, malaria control was neglected. Even the World Health Organization would not recommend DDT use indoors. It was revived, and even became (almost) chic thanks to a number of very high profile individuals including George Bush and Bill Gates, as well as lesser known people such as Don Roberts, Amir Attaran, Roger Bate and Richard Tren (all associated with Africa Fighting Malaria) . I delude myself into thinking that I played a minor role in helping ensure that DDT did not get banned outright under the Stockholm Convention.
Whatever people may think of Bill Gates stance on global warming, there is little doubt that he exhibited substantial political courage in espousing malaria control with DDT. That’s essentially why I was/am disappointed by his posting that set me off on this blog.
Perhaps I should have titled my piece, “Et tu Bill Gates!”
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
D. R. Roberts, et al. “DDT, global strategies, and a malaria control crisis in South America,” Emerging Infectious Diseases 3 (1997): 295-301 (1997).
D.R. Roberts, et al., “A Probability Model of Vector Behavior: Effects of DDT Repellency, Irritancy, and Toxicity in Malaria Control,” Journal of Vector Control 25 (2000): 48-61.
Karen I. Barnes et al., “Effect of Artemether Lumefantrine Policy and Improved Vector Control on Malaria Burden in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa,” Public Library of Science Medicine (2005): DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020330.
P. E. Duffy and T. K. Mutabingwa, “Rolling Back a Malaria Epidemic in South Africa,” Public Library of Science Medicine (2005): DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020368.
R. Tren, “IRS & DDT in Africa — past and present successes,” 54th Annual Meeting, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
D. H. Roberts, “Policies to Stop/Prevent Indoor Residual Spraying for Malaria Control,” 54th Annual Meeting, ASTMH, Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
I.M. Goklany, The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001). Chapter 2 deals with malaria and DDT.
Ed Darrell has two sets of comments, one of which, I believe, is fundamentally flawed, and the other I would agree with, at the risk of being accused by Alexander Feht of being obsequious once again (See Alexander’s comment on September 11, 2010 at 11:28 am).
A. Ed Darrell on September 12, 2010 at 7:40 pm, responding to tarpon said:
In 1972, about two million people died from malaria, worldwide.
In 2008, about 880,000 people died from malaria, worldwide. That’s fewer than half the mortality the year the U.S. stopped DDT spraying on cotton.
If it’s cause-effect you were trying to establish, I think you missed.
RESPONSE: The flaws in Ed’s analysis are aplenty.
First, although the US banned DDT in 1972, its use continued in much of the rest of the world. [If I remember correctly, the Swedes had banned it earlier.] In fact, US production of DDT for developing country use continued into the mid-1980s. Also, it took a few years for US environmentalists to ensure that the US domestic ban was — in the best traditions of cultural imperialism and bearing the white man’s burden — exported to other countries [without their (informed) consent, mind you]. [Notably, the US ban was imposed only after malaria had been wiped out in the US for practical purposes. See Figure 13, here.] In addition, countries had stockpiles which they continued to use, and not all developed countries were initially on board with eliminating DDT use worldwide. Furthermore, by 2008 some developing countries that had stopped DDT use had resumed its use. So it is not meaningful to use either 1972 or 2008 as endpoints for developing global estimates for the efficacy (or lack of it) of DDT in dealing with malaria..
Second, while DDT is in many instances the cheapest and most cost-effective method of reducing malaria (where it works, because it doesn’t always work) the death and disease rates are also sensitive to other factors, none of which have remained stationary between 1972 and 2008. These factors include general health status, adequate food and nutrition, public health services, and so on. So, it makes little sense, without adequately accounting for these factors, to compare deaths for malaria (or death rates, which would be more correct) between 1972 and 2008 to say anything about the effectiveness of DDT.
Fortunately, though, we have results of some “policy experiments” which were undertaken inadvertently — undertaken, I note, without the consent of the subjects of these experiments, something that would not be allowed in any hospital in the US, I suspect. These “experiments” allow us to evaluate the benefit of DDT (or lack thereof). As noted here (pp. 7-8) in a paper published a decade ago by Africa Fighting Malaria, it was noted that:
“Given the higher costs and, possibly, the greater efficacy of DDT, it is not surprising that despite the theoretical availability of substitutes, malaria rebounded in many poor areas where (and when) DDT usage was discontinued (WHO 1999a; Roberts 1999, Roberts et al. 1997, Sharma 1996, Whelan 1992, Guarda et al. 1999, Bate 2000). For instance, malaria incidences in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) dropped from 2.8 million in the 1940s to less than 20 in 1963 (WHO 1999a, Whelan 1992). DDT spraying was stopped in 1964, and by 1969 the number of cases had grown to 2.5 million. Similarly, malaria was nearly eradicated in India in the early 1960s, and its resurgence coincided with shortages in DDT (Sharma 1996). The population at high- to medium risk of contracting malaria in Colombia and Peru doubled between 1996 and 1997 (Roberts et al. 2000b). Malaria has also reappeared in several other areas where it had previously been suppressed, if not eradicated (e.g., Madagascar, Swaziland, the two Koreas, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan; Roberts et al. 2000b, and references therein). Similarly, Roberts et al. (1997) showed that Latin American countries (e.g., Ecuador, Belize, Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil and Venezuela) which had discontinued or decreased spraying of DDT inside homes saw malaria rates increase. Guarda et al. (1999) also note that in 1988, when DDT use was discontinued, there were no cases of Plasmodium falciparium reported in Loreto, Peru. The number of cases increased to 140 in 1991. By 1997, there were over 54,000 cases and 85 deaths (see, also, Goklany 2000c).
“But the best argument for indoor-spraying of DDT is that in many areas where malaria experienced a resurgence, reinstating DDT use once again led to declines in malaria cases. For example, Ecuador, which had previously seen its malaria rates rebound once DDT spraying had been reduced, saw those rates decline once again by 61 percent since 1993, when DDT use was increased again (Roberts et al. 1997). The same cycle occurred in Madagascar where the malaria epidemic of 1984-86, which occurred after the suspension of DDT use, killed 100,000 people. After two annual cycles of DDT spraying, malaria incidence declined 90 percent (Roberts et al. 2000b).”
Since then, we have results of the on-again and off-again policy with regard to DDT from KwaZulu-Natal Province in South Africa:
“DDT spraying in that area started in 1946. By 1974, Anopheles funestes, the mosquito species associated with year-round prevalence of malaria in that region, had been eradicated [see Figure below.]. In the 1991/1992 malaria season, the number of malaria cases was around 600 in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). However, in 1996, DDT was replaced by synthetic pyrethroids. In 1999 members of A. funestus were found in houses in KZN that had been sprayed. In 1999/2000, there were more than 40,000 cases in KZN. In 2000, DDT was brought back. By 2002, the number of cases had dropped to 3,500.” Source: Pre-edited version of Goklany (2007), pp.79-180.
See the Figure 1.
I have also provided additional references below, if one is interested in following up.
For a broader discussion, I recommend the chapter, “Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT,” in The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001). A previous version of this chapter is available free at http://goklany.org/library/DDT%20and%20PP.PDF.
Figure 1: From Goklany (2007), based on R. Tren, “IRS & DDT in Africa — past and present successes,” 54th Annual Meeting, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
B. Ed Darrell on September 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm said, “We may not beat malaria by 2014, but it won’t be because the Gates Foundation is on the wrong path.”
RESPONSE: I agree. For a long time, malaria control was neglected. Even the World Health Organization would not recommend DDT use indoors. It was revived, and even became (almost) chic thanks to a number of very high profile individuals including George Bush and Bill Gates, as well as lesser known people such as Don Roberts, Amir Attaran, Roger Bate and Richard Tren (all associated with Africa Fighting Malaria) . I delude myself into thinking that I played a minor role in helping ensure that DDT did not get banned outright under the Stockholm Convention.
Whatever people may think of Bill Gates stance on global warming, there is little doubt that he exhibited substantial political courage in espousing malaria control with DDT. That’s essentially why I was/am disappointed by his posting that set me off on this blog.
Perhaps I should have titled my piece, “Et tu Bill Gates!”
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
D. R. Roberts, et al. “DDT, global strategies, and a malaria control crisis in South America,” Emerging Infectious Diseases 3 (1997): 295-301 (1997).
D.R. Roberts, et al., “A Probability Model of Vector Behavior: Effects of DDT Repellency, Irritancy, and Toxicity in Malaria Control,” Journal of Vector Control 25 (2000): 48-61.
Karen I. Barnes et al., “Effect of Artemether Lumefantrine Policy and Improved Vector Control on Malaria Burden in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa,” Public Library of Science Medicine (2005): DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020330.
P. E. Duffy and T. K. Mutabingwa, “Rolling Back a Malaria Epidemic in South Africa,” Public Library of Science Medicine (2005): DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020368.
R. Tren, “IRS & DDT in Africa — past and present successes,” 54th Annual Meeting, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
D. H. Roberts, “Policies to Stop/Prevent Indoor Residual Spraying for Malaria Control,” 54th Annual Meeting, ASTMH, Washington, DC, December 11-15, 2005.
I.M. Goklany, The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2001). Chapter 2 deals with malaria and DDT.
Sponsored IT training links:
Guaranteed 642-524 preparation with latest 640-553 dumps and HP0-S27 practice exam!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I still meet people who think DDT is banned and is not used to control Malaria. There is a difference between covering the landscape in the stuff to using it where it does most good.
James.
[snip] – we aren’t going to have a Nazi discussion on this thread – Anthony
Indur,
I am surprised that my humble opinion attracted your attention. Who am I, after all, compared with he rich and powerful addressee of your open letter?
Rest assured, please, that I find nothing obsequious in your new, matter-of-fact post.
However, Mr. Gates deserved much harsher treatment on your part, and I was not the only one to express this sentiment.
Re DDT: I can witness that in 1980s Russian (Soviet) students doing sub-Arctic railroad construction in summer months (it was a “required” hard labor, a part of the mandatory curriculum and a way of earning some additional money as well; government stipends were woefully insufficient) were protecting themselves from relentless clouds of mosquitoes (“gnooss” thee call them in Russia; they are extremely annoying northern bloodsuckers, rather small but not as small as what Americans call “no-see-ems”) by literally dipping (shoulders, head, face, and all) into the big metal barrels filled with the strong DDT solution. It worked! Just for 20-30 minutes — then you had to “dip” again — but it worked. If this particular brigade of students can serve as a control group of individuals exposed to rather extreme and frequent doses of DDT, I can attest that these people have not suffered any special consequences of this exposure during the last 30 years. Some of them perished young in Afghanistan, but that’s a different story.
I guess I’m confused. I thought it fairly well established that the DDT ban was folly and has cost countless lives through our short-sighted “health” concerns. The fact that Bill Gates is touting an unproven vaccine and mosquito nets only serves to show that Bill is simply a software
piratetycoon. Some would say. I like Bill Gates. He is a success story. He tries to give back. But I’ll take the tried and true methods over more costly unproven methods any day. Nets are good. Diesel is good. DDT is very effective. Combine all three. A vaccine for the few places DDT isn’t effective and we just may kill the damned disease. But then the Malthusians would just throw a fit and find some other reason why we couldn’t/ shouldn’t destroy this disease.This article is curiously passive. Like commentary regarding the 9/11 anniversary just passed, it reads like a weather report: Al Qaeda’s Muslim terrorists remain conspicuous by their absence. Just so, from WWII to the mid-1960s DDT virtually eradicated malaria in vast swaths of the developing Third World, only to fall prey to ectopiasts’ opening salvo broadcast by Rachel Carson in her luridly alarmist “Silent Spring.”
Tens of millions of preventable deaths later, long after Mde. Carson’s ill-informed contentions have been decisively debunked, a mentality akin to Climate Cultists’ continues to obstruct simple meliorative efforts. As Indur Goklany notes, this occurred only after malaria was safely eradicated in the U.S. Like Warmist acolytes’ decades-long sabotage of global energy economies, advocating ridiculously over-hyped “alternative sources” as save-the-planet substitutes for coal, oil, nuclear-power sources, anti-DDT forces make no secret of their Luddite sociopathic object: As Ehrlich, Holdren, Hansen, Peter Singer and others of their ilk proclaim, 80% fewer human beings aboard Spaceship Earth –not including themselves– would be a thing of beauty and a joy forever.
As with militant Islam, the nihilist element here is very strong. But we prefer to think of such homicidal death-eaters as Thanatists, those who (as Muslim history attests) “love death more than life.” No wonder the two camps have drawn together, jihadists with increasingly violent eco-snarks of every stripe. Anyone who considers
this analogy mere rhetoric had best look closely at Thanatists’ depraved indifference to malaria casualties over nigh-on fifty years.
Alexander Feht said:
In the 60’s in Darwing, Australia, they used to send trucks around to spray DDT out in clouds during the wet season. They probably did that during the 50’s as well. I don’t know when this practice ceased. It was to keep the mosquitoes down. Didn’t seem to have any effect on people or animals despite the amount of spraying.
I’m still alive more than 40 years after those events.
John Blake says:
September 13, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Well stated. Perhaps the passive tone is a language thing? Again, I’m confused. I didn’t think the DDT ban was in discussion because I thought it quite plain and obvious that anyone involved helping the ban literally has millions of deaths on their hands and conscious. But I also thought it obvious that they didn’t care. Is their anyone out there that can rationally defend the ban on DDT? Call them what you will, Malthusians, Luddites, psychopaths, sadists, ect. In my mind, it was blatantly intentional and simply a prelude to what is being attempted today.
Actually, you have to be insane to support it, and for reasons that have nothing to do with malaria or whatever effect DDT may have no humans. When you apply DDT, or any other indiscriminate insecticide to the environment, you kill not only the mosquitoes, but all other insects, other arthropods and invertebrates, etc. Which destroys food chains and complete messes up the whole ecosystem. So yes, you don’t have as many mosquitoes as before, but that’s not an ecosystem that is going to last long. Fortunately it was banned before we had the chance to see the worst effects of this, although some classic stories remain, google “Operation Cat Drop” if you’re curious.
One has to always think about the whole system, not about the direct short-term benefit for certain much-less-smart-than-they-think-they-are primates, short-term benefit that may turn out to be a much greater long-term disaster.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5759216/are_environmentalists_to_be_blamed.html?cat=70
Sure to spark outrage, Dr. Rutledge, a California physician specializing in preventative medicine, chronicles the effects of the world-wide ban on the pesticide DDT in 1972, a ban inspired by the first enviro-bestseller, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962). Rutledge’s five-year-long effort is driven by his revulsion at millions of deaths, mostly of women and young children, in Africa and South East Asia, by the mosquito-borne disease, Malaria. According to a recent World Health Organization report, Malaria kills one million people annually, a disease, Rutledge confirms, that is wholly and immediately preventable.
GM:: “much-less-smart-than-they-think-they-are primates”
GM, you are not a primate then, I presume? An image of God, perhaps?
There is nothing holy, sacred, or untouchable in any “natural ecosystem.” Most “natural ecosystems” are hostile to man, and man is the measure of all things.
Best “natural ecosystem” is a man-managed ecosystem (most of the environmentalist fanatics never experienced any completely “natural” ecosystems, their view of our planet is as artificial as the view of marine life in an aquarium).
Yes, the widespread use of DDT can disrupt the initial food chain by depriving species feeding on mosquito larvae of their habitual snack. Is this any excuse for not saving millions of human lives? Only in a feverish imagination of a man-hating, self-loathing quasi-religious fanatic.
Ecosystem can (and does) adapt to man’s needs. But there is only one life for every human being, and a short one at that. If you wish to exchange your life for a frog’s, go ahead and do it. But in no way or form you can demand the same from others, and any attempts in this directions shall be ruthlessly restrained.
GM:
I just did a tour of Google looking at some of the hits for “Operation Cat Drop” and found most sites to consider it more myth than fact. A web site called catdrop.com has an interesting write up on it. It’s a great story, but in this case, I think perception and fact are strangers in the night. I agree with your salient point about eco-systems being disrupted, but the cause of eradicating malaria is noble and DDT is both effective and safe.
DDT concentrates going up the foodchain and causes serious problems for many species, especially birds. We almost annihilated Haliaeetus albicilla, a type of eagle, because DDT accumulated and concentrated in the foodchain finally making the eggs so fragile that the eagles broke them accidentally while nurturing them (whatever the birds do when they sit on them to make them warm:). The situation was really bad and there were only about 30 birds left when ddt was banned and the species made a good recovery. Now I see them weekly or daily when I take my boat out to sea. My point is the stuff affects the whole foodchain and needs to be regulated pretty tightly.
Malaria has not reappeared by the way 🙂
These are absolutely contradictory statements
Man is a measure to all things only in the deluded antropocentrically brainwashed minds of some (OK, the majority) of the members of the species.
The ecological reality of human existence is quite different.
LOL
You seem to be another one of the many here that suffers from severe reading comprehension problems. I specifically stressed the point that DDT is not specific to mosquitoes, it kills all insects, plus most other arthropods, and a lot of other invertebrates. Accordingly, the consequences are much greater than those of just eliminating mosquitoes.
Whatever doubts I had that you lack any ecological and general scientific literacy whatsoever were dispelled by that passage.
We all know those kids who are perpetually in need of attention. They run around waving their arms and shouting “look at me, look at me”. They want to participate in the grown up conversations but don’t add much just noise and a limited but annoying distraction.
The best way to deal with these children is usually to ignore them till they lose interest and go off and do other things. Deny them the oxygen of attention until they can contribute in a useful and meaningful way. If you do this your day will be much better spent.
Volt Aire,
The story about that eagle species is a myth.
And malaria reappeared in force, in Africa.
Anyway GM we’re not discussing widespread spraying for malaria prevention – we’re discussiong indoor applications to walls etc. This would not impact the “environment” you so worship. It was the “total” ban on DDT that was so inhuman, although you might argue it wasn’t a total ban according to the small print, effectively it was for small easily influenced small nations who needed DDT the most.
G: “Man is a measure [of] all things only in the deluded ant[h]ropocentrically brainwashed minds of some (OK, the majority) of the members of the species.”
I rest my case.
I find this Malcolm Gladwell article discussing Malaria and DDT to be the best account of where we stand today.
http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm
Further to my last comment. No one has mentioned that DDT was very cheap and long lasting which meant that there was little profit for manufacturers, unlike the very dangerous replacements. Follow the money.
“First, although the US banned DDT in 1972…”
The ban was for agricultural and similar uses, but not for public health purposes.
“For instance, malaria incidences in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) dropped from 2.8 million in the 1940s to less than 20 in 1963 (WHO 1999a, Whelan 1992). DDT spraying was stopped in 1964, and by 1969 the number of cases had grown to 2.5 million.”
The 1969 figure I have seen is half a million, but leaving that aside, in the years after 1969 years DDT spraying was resumed in Sri Lanka, but the number of cases remained in the hundreds of thousands.
Clearly, there were other factors at work. One was the development of resistance by mosquitos to DDT.
For all pesticides, some organisms within a population will possess a natural resistance to the chemical, presumably as a result of genetic mutation. This allows them to survive the pesticide, and the destruction of the susceptible organisms enables the resistant ones to multiply freely without competition. In short order, you have developed a resistant strain.
Resistance to pesticides is a common — indeed ubiquitous — phenomenon, and pesticide manufacturers and users need to develop strategies to combat it. However, in the early days of DDT use, these strategies would not have been widely used, if at all, in many places where agricultural and other uses were widespread.
The largest outbreak of malaria, in terms of deaths, was in Siberia over 100 years ago. The Thames marshes were not the place to live in the 1700-1800’s due to the Ague, which was malaria by another name. Use of any chemical must be where it does most good and in the case of malaria and DDT that seems to be in the home rather than country wide broadcast regardless of effectiveness.
When I was a child in Havana, Cuba in the early fifties, I couldn’t wait for the noisy jeep. It would move slowly spewing a thick yellowish-white cloud. Me and my friends would follow the jeep, hiding inside the cloud and couldn’t see each other or even our own hands in front of our noses. It was fun and it didn’t smell too bad. It was DDT.
It is hard to imagine people defending the ban on DDT after learning it has cost tens of millions of deaths. That defines the word “fanatic”.
Thought provoking post, well done.
Volt Aire says:
September 14, 2010 at 12:29 am
DDT concentrates going up the foodchain and causes serious problems for many species, especially birds. We almost annihilated Haliaeetus albicilla, a type of eagle, because DDT accumulated and concentrated in the foodchain finally making the eggs so fragile that the eagles broke them accidentally while nurturing them (whatever the birds do when they sit on them to make them warm:).
As I understand it, there is in fact no SCIENTIFIC evidence that DDT caused, or causes, thinning of egg shells of birds or any other creature – try Steve Milloy’s Junkscience for info. Eagles, & many other birds of prey were under pressure from changes in agricultural pratices (NOT the use of DDT) & hunting & habitat destrcution as they were considered pests & vermin, long before DDT was commercially available as a pesticide. As pointed out by Prof John Brignall on Numberwatch regarding DDT, there are ALWAYS “abuses” regardless of benefit, (Does not James Hanson abuse his privileged position?). Can anyone out there point to anything that is not abused at some stage or other? I also understand that Rachel Carson, ( I am no fan) although prone like so many politcally motivated activists to pick & choose her data & agruments to achieve her own ends, (thinning of eggshells etc) was indeed in favour of some “controlled” use of DDT for malaria eradication.
Prof Paul Rieter, a leading expert on vector borne diseases & IPCC contributor, has pointed out that malaria is more related to socio-economic conditions, rather than temperature (heat) related, as the UK HoP & Washigton Senate/HoR buildings are built on former malarial swamps! The inference is that wealth = health! That wonderful yet blinkered/eco-infested institution, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, has recently started a programme of coastal swamp creation for bird habitats, ideal environments for the malarial mosquito no less! Who says stupidity is the privilege of the poor?
I am surprised that the excellent Rotary Internationl programme to eradicate Malaria never gets mentioned in the blogosphere or in the MSM. All the research I have seen indicates that Rachel Carson and her book ‘Silent Spring’ were inderctly responsible for literally millions of infant deaths in the undeveloped world.
And the MSM is STILL holding up the dear old Polar Bear as an endangered species, now joined by the Arctic Fox. This is possibly where GM gets some of his attention-seeking nonscience.