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.
Max Hugoson says on September 14, 2010 at 5:12 am
This is contrary to my understanding and a simple search with the less-evil Bing.
Can you provide a reference? What steps did they take to eliminate contamination by the ever present evil DDT molecules and prevent those evil chemical companies from contaminating the samples?
You are close to being assigned to the “probable looney” camp …
I see China moving into Africa in a big way. They may not have the finesse of the West in standards of democracy in colonies, but they will be better than the anarchy into which much of Africa has fallen. They will rebuild infrastructure. And no doubt they will tackle malaria in whatever way will work best overall, without too much sentimental concern for the odd life here and there – if I understand Chinese mentality today – because healthy people make economic sense as a good work force.
James Sexton says:
September 13, 2010 at 9:57 pm
“But then the Malthusians would just throw a fit and find some other reason why we couldn’t/ shouldn’t destroy this disease.” And then right on time………….
=========================================================
GM says:
September 13, 2010 at 11:38 pm
“….When you apply DDT, or any other indiscriminate insecticide to the environment, you kill not only the mosquitoes,…..”
=========================================================
GM, I just want to thank you for making me appear prophetic! Sorry I missed the rest of the conversation, it was quite late and I went to sleep. But again, thanks.
It’s interesting how despite the evidence and past experiences with DDT that people still cling to the notion that somehow using it will cause irreparable damage to ecosystems when obviously it doesn’t occur even after prolonged DDT use. The only thing permanent is the millions of lives lost.
A better poison for anything, as declared as such by the EPA, is CO2, and as this terrible chemical is continuously produced by humans in the hideous act of breathing in an amount of almost 900 grams per day, they could perfectly manage to control mosquitoes by just exhaling on them.
Jimbo says:
September 14, 2010 at 7:14 am
It won’t take long to reappear in the US, and beware, as Malaria always goes accompanied with his pal Dengue. They have a selective preference for “green environments”.
Ed Fix says:
September 14, 2010 at 3:51 am
“Bedbugs are a nuisance, but they don’t kill people.”
Not yet… But what the hell, lets let them flourish and see what happens. While we’re at it, why don’t we quit controlling rats? Heck, lets stop managing everything and let Mo Nature do her thang! Celebrate Biodiversity! Lets all hold hands and sing!
Alexander Feht says concerning GM” revision of his comment:
“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.”
—–
What case, Alexander? I can only think of three major groups who preach your egotistical view of Man, and all three cite the same base mythology as their authority.
The eagle reports must not be myths, because if they were, you’d believe them.
Malaria was first extirpated in the US in 1905, in Ithica, NY, according to “Who Gave Pinta to the Santa Maria?”, a book about tropical diseases in North America by Robert Desowitz. Next came Staten Island. The last place malaria had a foothold was Tennessee, where it was eradicated in the early 1950s. An excellent book, full of ghastly facts and tales and science, that you can’t put down. Here’s a book review:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199712043372319
The cure for this illness by the Cinchona bark (out of which it is extracted its alkaloid “quinine”):
Jesuit’s Bark, also called Peruvian Bark, is the historical name of ,b>the most celebrated specific remedy for all forms of malaria. It is so named because it was obtained from the bark of several species of the genus Cinchona, of the order Rubiaceae, that have been discovered at different times and are indigenous in the Western Andes of South America and were first described and introduced by Jesuit priests who did missionary work in Peru. Other terms referring to this preparation and its source were “Jesuit’s Tree”, “Jesuit’s Powder” and “Pulvis Patrum”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit%27s_bark
The name of the genus is due to Carolus “Carl” Linnaeus, who named the tree in 1742 after a Countess of Chinchon, the wife of a viceroy of Peru, who, in 1638, was introduced by natives to the medicinal properties of the bark.
http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Cinchona
Could you tell that to Anthony Watts, Paul Driessen, and all the other people who claim Rachel Carson was a mass murderer?
DDT was left open to U.S. manufacture by the “ban,” also — which is why we have several DDT manufacturing plants designated as Superfund sites today.
DDT has never been out of production, nor out of use against malaria.
Which means that the claim that DDT could have saved millions of lives is specious.
Now, if you could just convince your buddies Tren, Bate and Roberts to get their math right, and their history right, we could get on with fighting malaria, instead of bashing science and scientists.
REPLY:
Mr. Ed Darrell, I’ve had quite enough of you. Cite EXACTLY where I called Rachel Carson a “mass murderer” in my own words. I have never made such claim.
Either proof or an an apology is required for your continued presence here.
And, you should check you own blog first: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/does-africa-fighting-malaria-actually-fight-malaria/ before you say that I’ve used the phrase. And a gentlemanly warning to you sir, I take this seriously.
– Anthony Watts
It reveals so much that the envirotrolls decry eagle-killing by DDT, but are silent on eagle-killing by their beloved windmills.
If one wasn’t so indoctrinated in lefty greenies propaganda one could probably correlate the decline in malaria with the weather in those regions having gotten a bit colder and dryer–the whole drainage “phenomenon” that seem to plague people where ever they go.
To Volt Aire:-)
At least you didn’t quote the WWF or US EPA:-
“Birds
DDT and its metabolites can lower the reproductive rate of birds by causing eggshell thinning which leads to egg breakage, causing embryo deaths. Sensitivity to DDT varies considerably according to species(35). Predatory birds are the most sensitive. In the US, the bald eagle nearly became extinct because of environmental exposure to DDT. According to research by the World Wildlife Fund and the US EPA, birds in remote locations can be affected by DDT contamination. Albatross in the Midway islands of the mid-Pacific Ocean show classic signs of exposure to organochlorine chemicals, including deformed embryos, eggshell thinning and a 3% reduction in nest productivity. Researchers found levels of DDT in adults, chicks and eggs nearly as high as levels found in bald eagles from the North American Great Lakes(36).”
I seem to recall that those two illustrious organisations have come under suspicion of late!
However, birds & other animals can suffer effects that appear to be directly linked to one thing or another, due simply to assumption, & people tending to believe what they at first see as the issue. For instance, when birds are stresses, their egg shells thin! When habitat is also under threat, causing stress, often young suffer for a variaty of reasons. I was not meaning to imply that your comments were in fact Junk Science, but that it was a source of information & I’ll take your word at face value. The point I was badly trying to make is that in my line of work, people jump to conclusions for all sorts of reasons, they may “believe” their property is subsiding when in fact it is not, but they “associate” cracking in buildings with subsidence, but buildings crack for all sorts of reasons without subsidence being connected at all:-)
Another point to consider, is that DDT was abused in as much as it became to be seen as panacea for all ills, when its useage should have been more controlled. Like so many things done over here in the Union of European Socialist Republics is that scientist appear to feed obscence levels of one substance or anoher (presumeably to “represent” or “simulate” life time usage) into some poor old lab rat until it develops a tumour then claim that the substance is a carcenogen, when it probably wouldn’t cause any meaningful long-term damage in reality. Not putting lemon into one’s G & T for instance was a little gem the media got hold of some years ago, due to the residue of pesticide on the peel being found to cause cancer. Ditto using lead-crystal glass was another scare storey where I believe some Californian laboratory found that after some time the lead could leach out into the alcohol left inside a lead-crystal decanter – after 5 years though! As someone pointed out at the time if one can leave alcohol in a lead-crystal decanter for 5 years they probably weren’t going to come to much harm from anything:-) I am still awaiting being eaten alive by a superbug, BSE/CjD ( the ticking time-bomb is now some 20 years old), lead poisoning from my pewter tankards used frequently & lead-crystal glasses used on hi-days & holidays, the flu pandemic, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, F & M, CAGW et al! What’s next I wonder?
Why argue against replicable results? There has been many studies on DDT in America and Canada on this very subject. The alteration of a diet of fish rife with lead, pcb and mercury to one of cultivated red meat containing nothing of the sort indicated what about DDT? Why absolutely nothing at all if they were not maintaining the eagle’s intake of these other well documented causes of nest mortality as part and parcel of that new diet.
Locally we’ve experienced an explosion in our bald eagle population and now nesting occurs just off major roadways all over Southern Saskatchewan. Who would have thought a massive up-tick in available food, from road kill through an explosion in whitetail deer populations, would equate to a much larger bald eagle (and golden as well as turkey vulture) population in the land of potash, oil and herbicides? The only thing I’m absolutely certain of is someone somewhere is pitching this as a direct result of something else completely unrelated to everything but their own agenda.
Steve from Rockwood says: “Luckily the real cause of the pine beetle infestation is global warming and not poor forestry management so we’re OK. Just one example.”
I doubt that global warming is the main cause of pine beetle infestation. Rather, pine beetle infestation is an example how blaming the global warming can lead us to making a problem worst — by ignoring the real cause.
Fires are part of the “natural” cycle of forests, but we have suppressed fires. As a result, pine forests have become congested with pines — the trees are now too close together and a breeding ground for pine beetles. This last summer, I visited the Black Hills and studied what the forest service is doing there to control the pine beetle problem. The main strategy apparently is to thin the pine trees, and I observed that where they have done this, the pine forest is healthy.
I commend the forest service: rather than blaming global warming, they attacked the real cause of the problem and made signficant progress.
I suppose the following quotes are mythical too:
“Dr. Charles Wurster, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was once asked if he thought a ban on DDT might result in the use of more dangerous chemicals and more malaria cases in Sri Lanka. He replied, “Probably–so what? 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 is as good a way as any.”
His views are hardly atypical. According to Earthbound, a collection of essays on so-called environmental ethics, “Massive human diebacks would be good. It is our duty to cause them. It is our species’ duty, relative to the whole, to eliminate 90 percent of our numbers.”
Former National Park Service research biologist David Graber famously remarked, “We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
“If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS,” reads a 1989 Earth First! newsletter. “It has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crisis.” ”
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/1143/Is_the_DDT_ban_intended_to_control_global_population.html
Seems to me there is an awfully cavalier and yes, even evil misanthropy, at the base of the “food chain” here.
per Jimbo’s post up there:
=========================================================
=========================================================
Jimbo says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:40 am
Dr. Charles Wurster, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was once asked if he thought a ban on DDT might result in the use of more dangerous chemicals and more malaria cases in Sri Lanka. He replied, “Probably–so what? 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 is as good a way as any.”
——
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;
the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many
apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb
———
“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history,
but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in
the number of game animals and the need to adjust
the cull to the size of the surplus population.”
– Prince Philip,
preface of Down to Earth
——
“One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier
———
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund
———
==============================================
i think these folks like Erhlich and the despicable prince philip, wurster, etc might be such narcissists that the thought never even crosses their minds that they might be the ones deemed necessary for culling….
“Dr. Erhlich, we know this is a brutal and heartless decision, but it is time to cut out the cancer…..”
“Dr. Wurster, we have too many and we need to get rid of some of ‘them’, and luckily, ‘you’ were selected”
“Prince Philip, you are getting your wish – it’s re-incarnation time”
“Jacques, it is time for population stabilization, goodbye!”
It’s worth noting that malaria is not the only mosquito-borne disease. Things like Dengue Fever are on the increase now as well.
Man! I thought we had beaten the DDT/malaria thing to death already. First off, it is important to understand the spectrum of insecticidal activity of DDT. There are huge numbers of bugs that are unaffected by DDT. DDT also breaks down in the environment. I would love to see any evidence of DDT harming vertebrates. DDT does not harm humans. Humans are also at the top of the food chain.
Before I go further I have to link to the excellent article by J. Gordon Edwards. This is the single best article I’ve ever seen about DDT:
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
There seems to be a general eco-geek perception that ALL pesticides are EVIL. Look at permethrin (a synthetic pyrethroid). This is wonderful stuff. In extremely small concentrations it eliminates probably more species of insects than any other safe and effective insecticide. It is so non-toxic to humans and pets that it is used in dips and in a 1% solution as a lice shampoo for children (which is sold OTC). A whopping 5% cream is used to treat scabies. The stuff kills roaches, ants, beetles, termites, flies, spiders…you name it. It’s very effective but has an extremely short residual time. DDT, on the other hand, has a much narrower spectrum of activity but an effective residual time making it ideal for mosquito control.
Insecticides are used for pro-human motivations (e.g. saving food crops from devastation, preventing disease, preventing structural damage, etc.). We don’t develop and use insecticides just because we hate bugs. Just like climate scientists, humans follow the path of enlightened self-interests. We’re human racists.
DDT is cheap and remarkably effective for mosquito control, but this is only one part of a complicated malaria control regime. Mosquitoes are the vector of the disease, but humans are the reservoir. You have treat infected humans and wipe out as much of the vector as possible in order to break the life cycle of the Plasmodia.
My case, Anton, is this:
If a man really thinks that the majority of human beings are “anthropocentrically brainwashed,” and that man’s life is worth less than that of an insect, he is not worthy of any further conversation.
We cannot interview and debate every inhabitant of every mental asylum.
Jimbo: “Dr. Charles Wurster, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was once asked…”
The passive construction, “was once asked” should be an alert on this quote. Who asked? Another version claims, “responded to a reporter’s question”. Which reporter?
Quotes that are vague on their source should be treated with scepticism, especially quotes that have the appearance of being heaven-sent.
The root of the problem is that environmentalists have never been exposed to a natural environment, as the majority of you have. Wonder why?
If you must complain about DDT, then promote Mother Nature’s way to control mosquitoes and thus malaria, and put up a bat house. Bats are voracious eaters of mosquitos, so more bats means less mosquitoes means less malaria thus less need for DDT. Show you’re willing to support a sustainable natural alternative and give some bats a new home.
Of course all bats are filthy disease-ridden rabies-carrying bloodsuckers, really just flying rats, so this is not done. Why Mother Nature ever allowed such vermin to evolve, ah, who knows. Best to eradicate them from anywhere humans live, to be safe. Think of the children!
GM says:
September 13, 2010 at 11:38 pm
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.
When banning CO2 for example?
To all people who refer to so-called “natural ecosystems”:
For hundreds of thousands of years, man has been changing the biological content of his environment to suit his needs. Except for some totally uninhabitable, almost inaccessible desert and mountain regions, and for ice fields of Antarctica, there are no ecosystems on this planet that are not-managed to some extent.
Therefore, it is nonsensical to talk about “natural ecosystems,” as opposed to man-made ecosystems. All you can see around, in most places of the world, from the downtown of a large city to the deepest jungle of Borneo, is a man-managed ecosystem.
Nobody likes pollution, and most of us do whatever we can to prevent and mitigate it, by reasonable, rational means, and taking into account the needs of human beings as our foremost, humanitarian priority. Perhaps, there is no sense in eternal increase in population, and I suspect that Earth’s human population will stabilize at some point, given the wide distribution of various birth control methods, and the undeniable fact that the more food people have available per person, the less they tend to procreate.
In the developed countries of the world the population has already stabilized, and in some cases declines. Call it “evolution in action.” Environmental protection in Western countries is more than adequate; additional measures (such as an excessive forest fire control) often result in more damage than doing nothing.
As a person who drives a car for 20 miles once in two weeks, who maintains 40 acres of the Colorado mountain pine forest in “pristine” condition (with some walking trails and benches for human comfort, of course), who collected and transported to a landfill two 18-wheeler truck loads of garbage left on this land by its previous owners, and who heats his house with pellets made from dead wood, I challenge any environmentalist lecturing me on the advantages of “natural ecosystems.”
You, and only you, the green fanatics, the eco-nuts, undermined the reputation of environmental protection, embezzled uncounted public funds, distorted and faked experimental data, perverted the educational system, and made it impossible for any reasonable people to support green causes.
You hijacked the good cause, and made it evil.
Truly, you are death worshipers. I enjoy watching your inhuman ideology going down in blue flames every day. You, green liars, deserve this, and much worse.