“I have recently been informed that a couple weeks ago I had the distinct honor of being ‘Lamberted.’ That is, I was the object of a tirade by Australian blogger Tim Lambert, a computer science professor who fancies himself an expert on everything from DDT to climate change.
Lambert is one of the “DDT deniers” I reference in my book Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazaardous to Your Health. Following the lead of his idol, Silent Spring author Rachel Carson, Lambert continues to promote the untruth that third-world countries ceased using DDT because the insecticide became ineffective due to mosquito resistance. Eco-Freaks explains the concept of resistance and details Carson and Lambert’s misunderstanding and/or misrepresentatons of these facts. (Tim, to use an analogy from your field of computer science, you wouldn’t forgo the best antivirus software simply because a hacker could develop a new super-virus that could get around it.)
Before I get to the “meat” of Lambert’s criticism (and, when you cut through all the rhetorical “fat,” it’s an awfully slim bone), let me again repeat that is indeed an honor to become the target of his attacks. This is because it puts me in such distinguished company. Several of my colleagues, such as Iain Murray, have had the pleasure of being “Lamberted.” I also join New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and editorial writer Tina Rosenberg, courageous liberals who deviated from the anti-DDT eco-orthodoxy, as one of the objects of Lambert’s venom. He is also none-too-happy that the World Health Organization, taking its cue from malariologists rather than crank computer scientists, recently reversed its long-held postition and now recommends DDT spraying “in areas with constant and high malaria transmission.”
What is it that has raised Lambert’s ire about yours truly? Lambert’s attack on me happened after Instapundit’s eminent blogger Glenn Reynolds linked to commented on my OpenMarket blog entry “The Don Imuses of Envrionmentalism,” about racist and outrageous quotes from prominent environmentalists. Lambert accused me of being a “quote doctor.” Yet a review of Lambert’s “refutations” shows it is Lambert who is attempting to perform the emergency “triage” surgery — to fix quotes embarrassing to the environmental movement…
Read the complete blog post here: http://www.openmarket.org/2007/05/04/the-honor-of-being-lamberted/#more-1411
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This is a classical example of people not being able to talk to each other.
Lambert is merely trying to make hasty amendments to the Green Creed. Just trying to adjust the canon that Greens can agree on. For Lambert, the most essential, important issue is maintaining some sort of orthodoxy Greens might make homage to.
Berlau, on the other hand, like a gate-crasher at an effete soiree, displays declasse effrontery by suggesting one might consider crass facts.
How rude!
Everyone knows that to be Green means being kind, generous, and discriminating. To suggest otherwise makes one seem, well, not quite fit for elite company. And insisting on facts seems, well, a bit mundane.
But an end will shortly come to this artificial miscommunication. The Greens will become known, factually and historically, as the architects of the African Holocaust, and no textual evasions will save them.
And don’t forget to order your copy of
“Eco-Imperialism: Green Power. Black Death.”
http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/order.php3
Carry it to your next cocktail party sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund–it’s sure to spark some polite conversation.
I comment deleted … because it didn’t add to the discussion, was not amusing, and was full of unsubstantiated personal attacks. Worse comments have been posted over recent weeks and not removed … but let us try and slowly lift the standard.
Well Berlau is a shonk , CEI are shonks – as is Schiller. Total bullshit artists. And you’re biased !
Just think Jen – “not amusing” – “personal” – but you’re totally happy for a sponsored attack on Lambert.
And to have “African Holocaust” – and you’re talking about standards. Pathetic really.
And any amount of ongoing insults from Mott !
Luke, when Jennifer asked us to slowly lift the standard, I think she meant towards the MORE polite.
Jen, the mark of the truthful courageous is not the company they keep but the quality of enemies they attract.
Have you ever thought how much it would cost someone whose argument for banning DDT in the third world had been accepted.
Millions of peopled dead , millions ill and suffering who could have been saved cheaply.
How could one look in the mirror and see Adolph Hitler staring back. It’s probably why they can’t admit they are and were wrong.
Like the song says “Suicide is painless”.
Me I was once honored to be a President in Rotary an organisation who boast and rightly their crusade against polio.
Gratz on the idiot scalp hanging on your belt. If the world was just, people would be facing somekind of malpractice in issues with such horrific consequences. But it aint.
And of course Jim too.
S’cuse me?
OK Luke – I didn’t think your comment was more over the top than usual for you but it’s Jen’s blog.
Abuse aside , what was the substance of Berlau’s post that was incorrect/misleading or selective?
After years of effective use resulting in steady reductions in deaths from malaria , DDT use was discouraged in the third world ( whether that amounted to a real ban or a de facto prohibition is not that important ) by western governments or their representatives because of environmental concerns.
Following that malaria increased significantly and thousands or millions more people died.
Now I don’t accept for a second that any decent person ( some of the quotes above are pretty scary however ) intended that to happen or didn’t care if it did but your lot are pretty quick to sheet every death in Iraq ( even those caused by foriegn terrorists )directly and personally to Bush/Howard/Blair etc.
So what’s the difference here – just the usual flexible standards or am I missing something?
Now there’s a post long on ad-homs and short on facts if I ever read one.
DDT is a single chemical. It isn’t the be-all and end-all. Anyone who has actually had anything to do with pest management knows that an individual chemical on its own is never enough to solve a pest problem over the long term, yet this is what all the ‘millions dead’ people are claiming. It’s rubbish (and this is before you even add in the negative environmental impacts of DDT).
So let me get this right Nexus – DDT did or didn’t have any significant impact on reducing deaths from malaria?
In my opinion it is unfair to blame the ban on DDT ” for millions of death”.
In the 70’s , the medical researchers had big hopes to develope anti malaria drugs, that were efficient and had fewer side effects than DDT, so the ban might have been justified.
Now these attempts failed, and malaria, AIDS and TBC are those diseases that are very hard to combat.
DDT is cheap, so I really hope that this is not THE solution to the malaria problem. The solution must be IMO more resources for malaria vaccines
etc.
Malaria is not unique in that a variety of strategies are needed to control it and DDT is not the only strategy used against malaria nor should it be used improperly – but it is enormously effective and its proper use should be promoted.
Ann
have you any idea just how difficult it is to find a vaccine for malaria? If they found one tomorrow it could be years before it is able to be put safely onto the market and in the meantime people continue to contract and die of malaria.
Hey Rog,
Yes, I’m quite familair with all the trials with drugs and vaccines…
OK, now a question to you.
If developed countries would have been affected by malaria, would we have been ” satisfied” with DDT usage?
Malaria is a disease that mostly affects poor nations, and if malaria had been a common disease in our countries , I’m sure that medical researchers had already developed the necessary vaccines and combination drugs.
I had a brief look at one website. It had a quite positive tone…really hope they will have a success in the near future…. malaria is a nasty disease that keeps nations trapped in poverty….
Ann
I am sure that they had high hopes. But the dead will remain dead, in science, trial side by side is called being efficacious is it not, before we replace something.
The banning of DDT was emotional bullshit, politics for species unendangered across the planet.
Anyway the dead and the ill will remember good intentions on the way to hell they had.
Good luck with the mirror. Ann. They killed millions with noble intentions and no truth.
Now if you were involved in this, me an my smallest pinky and the world smallest violin will silently weep but not for you.
Emotion is not science.
Now, now , John , you are pretty emotional yourself.
My point was like the author of a Washington Post article stated:
” Overselling a chemical’s capacity to solve a problem can do irretrievable harm not only by raising false hopes but by delayiong the use of more effective long-term methods.”
Note as well, I have previously commented on DDTs in some other posts on the Arctic and bioaccumulation in wildlife. I also pointed out that the Arctic Council never has objected the use of DDTs in Africa despite the harm they do to their more nothern cousins.
And Nexus pointed out as well, that everyone familiar with antibiotics,drugs, bacteria, viruses, insects know that these pests are always a step ahead of human science. As far as I have understood , it is unenvitable that they will develope a resistance sooner or later.
John, read this article , I think it is a sensible one ( note as well, it doesn’t rule out the possibility to use DDT):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400130_2.html
Nexus 6.
DDT is not a single chemical its not in the chart.
Second no one said be all.
You are quick on lie and slow on argument.
The people who banned DDT did not replace it with an equal or better solution. They just said DDT is bad because animals are being infected with DDT even the arctic little furry things.
Millions died and millions were incapacitated, have you even seen Malaria.
Nexus I really hope you have Malaria one day and without treatment for a week.
It is not a very nice disease to have, some say it’s fatal.
Me I say if it works, one solution lets use it until we get something better. Nazis like Nexus believe that people dieing is a discussion that they need to have.
But they believe the world has too many humans too.
Ann and Nexus
The dead may not argue your points.
Your argument relies on the argument of cowards.
No, own your opinion and the result.
Was the treatment efficacious, was it replaced with a solution.
The dead and the ill tell the story.
For me, Jen the argument is finished the tale of the mass murders, they hide behind words.
Words are deeds. Mass murderers got away. Again.
Ann,
Surely it doesn’t come down to the argument that because they don’t have access to the best , they shouldn’t use the second best?
I don’t think anyone here is saying that DDT was going to have the same efficacy forever but rather that ; was it stopped / discouraged , because of genuine scientific concern about overuse and resistance and the human deaths that could result , or was it something else?
If it was something else Ann , then what are the moral/ethical and legal ramifications of that decision?
Malaria used to be endemic in North America, with outbreaks ranging as far north as Canada. Thanks to DDT, malaria is now almost unknown on the continent.
To say that malaria is a tropical disease confined to developing countries merely reflects a decision to let DDT be used by rich people, and later to take it off the market for everyone.
Look, this stuff about those who denied or restricted DDT use as being mass murderers is just nonsense. The fact is that malaria has been around for a very long time, longer than DDT and malaria is the lethal part of the equation.
Comparing those who have campaigned against DDT with Hitler is just nonsense, in fact it weakens the argument for the sensible and rational use of DDT.
John, Jim, Rog,
I don’t know the exact motive why they banned DDT.My guess is that environmentalist had detected some harmul damage to wildlife and if the animals had defects of DDT , then it could not be ruled out that they might be harmful to humans as well. Why else do we have lab animals?
Re replacements to DTTs. Aren’t the scientists working their asses off to find solutions?The problem have been that all malaria drugs are inefficient after some times usage.Familiar????
But, but, actually , there is an effective drug on the market now that has not yet developed resistance.
Why do we not hear about this???? Is it too expensive????
And Rog, you made a good comment IMO….
Some time, in the early to mid 70s, during my cruising yachty bum stage, I sailed into Rabaul, New Britain, [PNG], to sit out the cyclone season. As always happened to me, I found myself co-opted to run the spare parts department of the largest trader in town, while the manager went for a couple of months overdue leave.
Just a few weeks later we were almost out of business. The staff, expat, & local were refusing to go into the store area because of the swarms of mosquitoes. We were using every available chemical, & repelant, [would you believe 100 mossy coils a day], & could not control them. We were reasonably sophistedicated people, & were taking our malaria pills, so weren’t too much at risk, just it made life too unpleasant.
PNG was self governing by then, & the growing inefficiency had ment that DDT spraying had stopped, many months before. The money had gone. I don’t know where it came from, but some money was found, & the DDT spraying was resumed for some months. Life once again became possible.
No one, who has not seen what its like to live in the Sepic River area, & others like it, has any right to even an opinion, let alone any say on what insect controll the people use.
Lambert has never said DDT should be banned, nor that it is banned. It is available for use where appropriate. Indiscriminate use of DDT is the issue, because it does persist and accumulate in the environment. All pesticides, like all drugs, have side effects, and must be used responsibly.
http://timlambert.org/2005/12/ddt-ban-myth-bingo/
The claim ‘Lambert is one of the “DDT deniers” ‘ is just wrong.
Berlau makes a basic mistake in claims for proof.
“Do I know for certain that Yannacone’s charges against Wurster are accurate? No I don’t. And neither does Lambert know for sure that Wurster’s version is the truth, given that neither one of us were privy to the orginial exchange. But again, given Yannacone’s distinguished credentials, I see no reason why his version of the story should automatically be given any less credence than Wurster’s.”
It is Berlau who has made the claim, and he readily admits it may not be true, but that Lambert cannot prove it is false either. *Ding, ding, ding*.
Berlau has made the claim, he should be providing the proof it is true, not Lambert the proof it is false.
SJT,
Lambert’s DDT ban myth bingo is error ridden rubbish.
Berlau doesn’t claim Wurster said anything, he merely reports what Yannacone says Wuster said. If you have a problem with that, you should contact Yannacone.
Prior to the Stockholm Treaty many NGOs called for the total ban of DDT eg WWF;
http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pops_inc/press_releases/reuter2.htm
The Stockholm Treaty on POPs;
“..The countries in Working Group have banned practically 6 of the intentionally produced POPs, mainly the pesticides. However, in the case of DDT and PCBs, some countries have requested for exemptions pursuant to Article IV mainly for vector control
programs ..”
UN policy “…Because of it’s effectiveness at killing insects with few acute effects on humans, DDT had been a mainstay of many countries’ fights against malaria, a disease that is a growing threat to health in much of the world. For this reason, the World Health Organization (WHO), while supporting an ultimate phase-out, continues to endorse the use of DDT for indoor residual application in government-authorized public health campaigns. (WFPHA, World Federation of Public Health Associations, 2000)”
http://www.chem.unep.ch/gpa_trial/14ddt.htm
As to the threat of trade sanctions against those that use DDT, the EU boxed clever on that issue;
“….If Uganda is to use DDT for malaria control, it is advisable to do so under strictly controlled circumstances. The country would also have to set up a parallel system to monitor foodstuffs for the presence of DDT. This would ensure that any contamination of foodstuffs is detected and corrective measures taken.
However, these measures may not be sufficient to allay the fears of individual consumers of Uganda’s food products in the EU.
The EU would therefore urge Government to consider the wider implications of the use of DDT before a decision is taken.”
http://www.deluga.cec.eu.int/en/newsletter/dec04/ddt_effects.htm
Later on they went into damage control;
“The issue of EU controls on DDT residues in products exported to the EU and its implications for the use of DDT to fight malaria in Africa has arisen a number of times. It is a sensitive issue where the EU has been strongly criticised for putting selfish food safety concerns in relation to DDT ahead of the huge human costs of malaria in Africa. These allegations are unfounded. DDT is not a problem in relation to food exports from Tanzania or other African countries to the EU. Moreover, the EU is confident that the appropriate controls can be put in place to ensure that DDT is used to combat malaria without risk to food safety. ”
http://www.deltza.cec.eu.int/en/press_release/ddt.htm
Latest press release from WHO re malaria and DDT, dated 3 May 2007.
“WHO affirms commitment to DDT reduction in Malaria control”.
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_56180.shtml
Tim Lambert takes it right back to Berlau in return fire.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/_john_berlau_has_responded.php#more
Of course intelligent and responsible entomologists would understand the long term implications of insecticde resistance.
This story from Africa appears relevant to this dicussion http://www.epherald.co.za/herald/news/n10_26042007.htm
as it reports a major decrease in the number of malaria cases and the a substantial reduction in deaths from 85 to 25 this year due to the use of DDT.
We might all value and understand the importance of saving lives and reducing illness in terms of social and economic impact.
JF
yes, exactly. Heresay evidence, that has to be suspect because it is so nutty. If there is other evidence, I would consider it may be true, since the other person denies it, then I don’t consider it evidence a journalist or author should consider. A journalist of a professional standard would get something like that checked, or look for similar acts to verify a pattern of behaviour.
SJT,
Berlau clearly describes the iffy nature of the Yannacone accusation:
“Charles Wurster, co-founder and former chief scientist of Environmental Defense Fund (now Environmental Defense): When asked about human deaths that would result from the banning of DDT, due to exposure to more acutely toxic DDT subsitutes, Wurster allegedly said, “It doesn’t really make a lot of difference because the organophosphate acts locally and only kills farm workers, and most of them are Mexicans and Negroes.” Wurster was accused of saying this by EDF co-founder Victor Yannacone, and the accusation was reported at a Congressional hearing. Wurster denied making the statement, but Yannacone — a prominent environmental attorney — has never taken back his accusation against Wurster.”
Lambert rebuts with sweeping assumptions:
“Does that quote sound like Dr Wurster or Dr Evil? How gullible do you have to be to find that quote plausible? Jim Norton has tracked down the source of the quote. It seems that after Yannacone was fired by the EDF, he came up with the claim that Wurster made the statement above at a press conference. At a press conference. You would think that an outrageous statement like that would have been reported by at least one reporter, but no, there is no contemporary record of him saying it, just the unsupported statement of a man with an axe to grind. Berlau knows all this but keeps it from his readers.”
Lambert is attacking hearsay with character assassination. A truth-seeking scientist should be able to provide a better argument, don’t you think? (By the way, according to the reference provided by Lambert, it is not clear when Wurster is meant to have made the alleged comment – it is not specified that the comment was made at a press conference.)
I read a scary statement from the British medical journal , the Lancet.
According to the Lancet, tens of thousands people die in Africa because funds, often via WHO, sell out-of date malaria prophylaxis to undeveloped countries. Scary indeed!
JF Beck – it’s totally spurious to extroplate the use of organophosphates in an agricultural situation with DDT in a medical entomological environment. Most pesticides have human toxicity issues and these days there really is little excuse for direct human contact with mixing and handling. Drift issues with aerial and terrstrial applicators are well known. As is appropriate clothing protection in field operations. All this is up to farm managers to police and contain. It is simply a workplace health and safety issue.
Indeed a major reason that organochlorines are not used in agriculture is insect resistance with the resistance genes still present in many pest populations years after spraying. THAT IS – DDT as a protective technology STOPS WORKING. Waste of time. Not to mention lingering genetic issues with cross resistance.
Luke,
The man in the street understands that overuse or innapropriate use of any pesticide can lead to resistance.
Was that the reason for the ban/discouragement etc decades ago which lead to the increase in malaria deaths?
Or was the change in attitude driven by environmental concerns – at the expense of lives in the third world ?
Ann admits she’s not sure and certainly I don’t know either but Berlau is advancing an argument that environmental concerns trumped human suffering.
Arguing that DDT will eventually lose it’s potency because of resistance and that there are many alternatives available isn’t relevant to Berlau’s point is it?
Jim – Well the man in the street might know about resistance but history has shown that agriculturalists in the main do not – with many pesticides overused to the point of selection for resistance.
There are intelligent science based alternatives such as now practiced by the Australian cotton industry. http://www.croplifeaustralia.org.au/files/managingresistance/IRMS%20Cotton%20-%20Northern-%202006-2007.pdf
Bans on DDT were derived from agricultural use. Indeed mosquitos have already demonstrated resistance to DDT.
http://timlambert.org/category/science/ddt/
Jim,
I’m sure that leading persons in the environmental movement didn’t chose environmental concerns before human sufferings.
What I like to believe is that evident harmful impacts of DDT to wildlife was as well an indicator or a canary in a coal mine that might as well indicate harmul impacts of DDT on humans.
Maybe the ” ban” on DDt was implemented in a time of huge optimism to find suitable replacements , less toxic insecticides and efficient drugs and vaccines.
As I have mentioned , unfortunately medical science has not always been as succesful as they hoped to be. The battle against malaria and some other infectious diseases is not very succesful…
Unfortunately, the discussion on DDTs is a bit polarized IMO. The pro DDT camp states that DDT is harmless to humans and animals. This is utter crap. We have proof of that from the Northern hemisphere, where all these POPs , including DDT accumulates. ( I’m not going into this subject now).
I hardly don’t think as well that the environmental movement is totally opposed to a rational use of DDT.
As with many substances , they need evaluations and re-evaluations….
Luke,
You are wrong to extrapolate from Australian agriculture to mosquito control… and resistance can be managed. Furthermore, and as an aside, despite the developing resistance of canegrubs to DDT in the 1980s, there was nevertheless a step increase in the incidence of the pest in the Burdekin with the withdrawl of DDT from use in the sugar industry in 1987.
DDT was withdrawn from use against mosquitos in areas were resistance was not an issue – but politics was.
There has been an increase in deaths due to malaria over the last decade which some have attributed to the international campaign against the use of DDT.
The modern environment movement is considered by many to have its origins with Rachel Carson’s attack on DDT in her best seller Silent Spring, published in 1962.
The book and the campaign against DDT that followed resulted in the US Court of Appeals ordering the head of the US Environment Protection Agency William Ruckeshaus, to start the process of suspending DDT registration.
After an initial 60-day review process Rauckeshaus concluded that there was no good reason to ban DDT. But under mounting public pressure changed his position and banned DDT in the USA in June, 1972.
Ms Carson’s campaign had effectively highlighted environmental concern but failed to acknowledge DDT’s important role in malaria prevention particularly in the Third World.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) more than 1 million people die each year from malaria – mostly small children in Africa. Malaria is estimated to cause up to 30,000 deaths a year in Indonesia.
There has been an increase in deaths due to malaria over the last decade which some have attributed to the international campaign against the use of DDT.
For example, in response to international pressure, South Africa stopped using DDT for malaria control in 1996. The number of deaths from malaria increased from less than 50 per year over the period 1971 to 1995, to 450 in 2000. The South African Health Department switched back to DDT with an 85 per cent reduction in malaria cases within 18 months – the DDT spraying is believed to have controlled the case load to such an extent that all malaria patients could be treated with a new drug, Coartem.
In this and other current malaria control program, spraying with DDT is restricted to the inside of homes.
In 1970 the National Academy of Sciences wrote in a report that ”to only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT” and credited the insecticide with saving half a billion lives.
As part of the negotiations leading to the United Nation’s Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) coming into effect in May 2004, organizations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) campaigned hard to extend what has been a worldwide ban on the agricultural use of DDT to include malaria control.
But just before the Convention took effect, the WHO stated that it “proposed and supports the continued use of DDT for disease vector control” and that “DDT, if restricted to indoor residual spraying, will form a minuscule portion of past usage levels, and will address (concern over) the uncontrolled release of the pesticide in the environment.”
Resistance is a manageable issue, environmental politics is completely out of control.
Excerpt from the New York Times re malaria and DDT:
“Greenpeace spokesperson Rick Hind agreed. “If there’s nothing else and it’s going to save lives, we’re all for it. Nobody’s dogmatic about it.”
Link, especially for Schiller and John:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16803
John,
I like your work:
“Nexus I really hope you have Malaria one day.”
“Nazis like Nexus……”
You’ve really added to the tone of the thread with your thoughtful reply. Thanks.
Anyway, if DDT were part of an integrated management scheme (which it is), then what’s the problem? An individual part of the scheme doesn’t save millions of lives. All aspects of it when combined do. The fixation on a single chemical should be left in the past. Pest and disease vector management doesn’t work that way now. Nowadays it’s all about the use of rotated pesticides combined with other preventative measures.
Me thinks that bird is back to peck.
Luke is wrong, much of the reasoning in using ag chemicals is not based on resistance, more to do with the collapse of natural predators. You can wipe out one bug with supracide but all of a sudden 10 more appear in its place. Nowadays they use chemicals selectively and through strategic monitoring target specific areas to knock an outbreak down, not drench the whole paddock like the goodd ol days.
The increasing usage of expensive chemicals with diminishing results forced the cotton industry to devise a more sophisticated IPM program.
It is not that the chemicals are an issue it is how you use them.
Gee is that right Rog – I can see the glasshouse experience shining through in cotton entomology. So how do you specifically target mites, whitefly, aphids as sceondary flared pests in a sea of cotton?? What exactly are the natural predators and where do they come from? All that resistance laboratory and resistance strategy must be wasted.
Hi Jen,
Is the John in comments John Berlau? Or is it, as Gavin thinks, Graeme Bird? I rather hoped he had disappeared.
Jennifer: Your response to Luke appears to ignore heaps of info on wiki about DDT history and international bans on its use as the science on accumulative dangers progressed.
Given that DDT is still used inside dwellings in critical regions I must ask the blog if we don’t have a hidden agenda here re the question of restoring volumes back to those post war days when many users were ignorant of the growing threat to all environments long term.
My guess is no one on here has been exposed long term either. That leads me to ask who has actually done the necessary (direct) research on any long term situation downunder.
Luke and Nexus – what is the problem with admitting that prima facie , Berlau presents a reasonable argument?
If there is evidence which goes to the assertions he makes ( not generalised evasions about resistance and modern alternatives ) believe me I’m up for it!
This looks like the climate change debate all over again – no contrary evidence or theory can be contemplated or acknowledged?
If the facts are not as presented by Berlau then we should be able to establish that.
If he’s right , then we are left with the preposition that science is sometimes swamped by politics.
Haven’t you argued precisely that before Luke – especially in respect of IPCC reviewer timidity when it comes to AGW?
Jen
Well I’m not extrapolating from Aussie agriculture to mosquito control. I’m responding to Jim – actually resistance is not always manageable – see collapse of the Ord River cotton industry, how close the Namoi industry navigated to insecticide resistance in the 1970s and the massive wakeup call to pending resistance to synthetic pyrethroids in the 1980s. There are many international examples of insectcide resistance. Indeed very few insecticides come onto the market – their development cost and profitability being less than favourable. Agriculture and storage entomology hovers in the brink.
Yes despite DDT resistance, cane beetle damage did increase as the organochlorines (OCs) (a whole suite of them) were persistent under cane cultivation as they are in the environment. Indeed the actual mortality depends on how the log dosage mortality relationships were moving at the time of the ban. No doubt OCs were quite handy chemicals for cane beetle control.
Anyway to the point of environmentalists stopping DDT – it’s quite remarkable they have that power given the parlous state of environmental and resource management in undeveloped nations.
There’s a whole complex of reasons for DDT withdrawl – apparent success of prior spraying, withdrawl of funding, local government attitudes, insecticide resistance and yes advocacy of environmentalists.
Despite apparent success with DDT reintroduction regular broadscale use will bring back resistance quickly in areas where prior resistance has been endemic. And in terms of the indoor use – does it simply drive the mossie outside for external transmission.
Despite shortcoming I have no problem with internal use of DDT if that’s what host nations wish to do.
But DDT is not the only chemical and surely we’re entitled to look for betetr all-round control methods. Jen are you advocating widespread distribution of POPs in the environment is acceptable.
But the pugilists here have been very unscholarly on DDT myth – big on the rhetoric – holocaust nonsense – little on serious documentation of the real history.
Berlau’s account I regard as scurrilous hence my umbrage on this thread. And let’s not forget this guy’s catalytic converter assessment as an indication of quality.
All part of the brownwash that is really out of control and supporting a few corporate pockets.
And brownwash normally discounts insecticide resistance too. Just keep pumping that product ! US chemical corporates have had a habit of playing spoiler with local agricultural IPM efforts and insisting on high chemical protection.
Jim – have a good old Google on DDT myth issues and tell me it’s all very simple and there are no complexity of issues. Simply that nasty Hitlerite greenies stopped DDT usage. The case is purely rhetorical – lots of appeals to authority and who said what. More Al Gore style diversion syndrome.
Have been Googling this for a while Luke – to deny there was a link between first world environmental concerns and EU/World Bank style pressure on third world nations to cut back on DDT use is pretty untenable.
The resistance excuses appear to be post fact rationalisations.
Complex arguments still have to be measured and assessed.
See you all tomorrow!
OK, I have mentioned this zillion times on the whaling threads, but this have to do with bioaccumulation of POPs , including DDT, when consuming pilot whales blubber and meat, sea bird eggs and other sea food in Faroe Islands .
A study carried out by the University of Stockholm ( note, no NGOs involved) , showed that children, whose mothers consumed pilot whale meat or blubber, and other seafood, when breast feeding, showed quite severe neurological sympthoms from the sea food that was tainted with DDT and other POPs.
Just an example that DDT is not at all as harmless as the pro DDT camp wants us to believe.
Now , I have no knowledge about the food chain in Africa, but air and sea currents have transported the DDTs to northern latitudes.
I’ve deleted the three posts from ‘John’ mentioned by Nexus and Gavin.
Neither Rachel Carson nor Tim Lambert has proposed a blanket ban on the use of DDT for public health purposes. Nor was there ever a “ban” on the use of DDT for such a purpose imposed by the UN or anyone else.
Since environmental groups overwhelmingly support DDT use for public health purposes, what we are seeing here is a dishonest anti-green beat up.
Jen Marohasy says:
“As part of the negotiations leading to the United Nation’s Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) coming into effect in May 2004, organizations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) campaigned hard to extend what has been a worldwide ban on the agricultural use of DDT to include malaria control.”
This statement is untrue. I have checked WWFs archival documents and here’s what they actually say:
“WWF initially called for a global phaseout and eventual ban on DDT production and use by the year 2007, together with financial and technical assistance to the developing world. The 2007 deadline was intended as a motivational tool to encourage the necessary financial and technical assistance. The proposal of a 2007 deadline drew considerable public attention to the scope of the world’s malaria problem and the need to implement alternatives to DDT.
However, it also raised fears that DDT would be phased out without sufficient guarantees of protection of public health from malaria. To allay these fears, WWF has set aside discussion of the 2007 deadline, while retaining its commitment to eliminating DDT. Both the UNEP and WHO recognize that such elimination can be a “win-win” situation for public health and environmental protection.”
You have grossly misrepresented the WWF, Ms Marohasy.
Sorry, link for above quote is:
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy/toxics/problems/our_chemical_world/ddt/index.cfm
Thanks Jennifer; however I had 7 sus replies in my sights late yesterday. Cons and false charm on the www are my speciality from way back.
Back to DDT and “bans”.
IMHO There is no conspiracy today with WWF or any other responsible body, in or outside governments. But I can say there is a lot of discussion on this issue that is not recorded for geeks on the internet. People who worked with chemicals every day in the critical years are not here either. Also any science that is available comes only from a great deal of effort by independents to protect people in the workplace.
In my experience, DDT is but one of a whole range of new age quick fixes for old problems. In my workplaces we had chlorine and mercury compounds, asbestos and other cacogens, radiation hazards etc.
Recognising noise pollution that lead to permanent industrial deafness was our first breakthrough at the award level.
Chemicals like harmful noise and free pathogens in the food chain were all very hard to zero right through the post war manufacturing boom for no other reason than there was so many of them. Our best industrial chemists and engineers were up to their necks in breaking individual company records to produce more and more. It could have been sugar or beer even film in that race.
Kodak in Australia were the first to raise the alarm on strontium 90 in the atmosphere.
How long did it take our unions to ban those tests?
Bodies like us clubbed together on most of the nasties while the “authorities” had to be dragged along in the discussions.
For the record I was also up to my neck in fluoride and for a time had considerable interest in drug control. DDT in this context is long overdue for replacement as a personal prop for campaigners.
Munn, WWF, GP etc all originally called for a total global ban on DDT – they have now adapted their stance and are busy “updating” archives
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/toxics/what_we_do/pop_work.cfm
Here is WWF calling for a total ban on DDT
http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pops_inc/press_releases/reuter2.htm
and again “”There is no longer a question about whether DDT should be banned, only how soon it can happen..”
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9901/29/ddt.enn/index.html
GP, WWF are all members of IPEN and the current IPEN policy on DDT is as follows;
http://www.ipen.org/ipenweb/library/6.zip
hey Munn, Lambert has just said he was wrong, why dont you?
Hey Rog – why don’t you critically and fullsomely read your above links and tell us what they really say. So why don’t you admit that you’re wrong.
The spin is really endless isn’t it? Scurrilous stuff.
Get back to informing me on cotton PM technology and bring a very big stick.
P.S. Don’t try and bulldust with the dead link scam. Way Back Machine easily brings it back here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031203182656/http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/toxics/what_we_do/pop_work.cfm
The material has simply been superseded.
It’s 2003 and in line with your following links.
Interesting link Luke on POPs; trafficking, dumping etc I sometimes wonder if we can ever move on.
Folks; the following is so old hat –
“dioxin emissions can be significantly reduced through such actions as: moving away from municipal waste incineration and concentrating on expanded recycling, reuse, and composting programs; eliminating the use of chlorine bleaching in pulp and paper manufacturing; and replacing PVC plastic with other plastics that don’t contain chlorine or more traditional materials such as wood, metal, paper, and glass.
PVC was another innocent inquiry. That door snapped shut in my face at the reactor level. Inquiry starts with say a knowledge that even radiation for medical purposes burns. Thyroid glands are easy stuff hey.
Cancer in the blood or bones is triggered by what? Dioxin contaminates the lab bench and we shield a research room with lead. Eventually we build another school but nobody recalls the history.
Endless links are just crap in the end because one by one they died. Oddly though the world population goes up and up.
Hey, do we actually have some kind of a concensus here at the blog???
We all support a limited spraying of DDT in medical purposes to fight malaria together with other tools.
And our ultimale goal is phasing -out DDT and finding better replacements????
DDT seems still to be efficient in South Africa , but it doesn’t work in West Africa…. so maybe the real problems are not if to spray DDT or not , but to find the real cure for malaria.
Artemisin-based drugs seem still to be working and the mossies have not yet developed resistance…
Other problems seem to be that people take the medicines only for a short period and stop as soon as they feel well…
Luke says read the links;
“Environmental groups aim to stop the use of 12 toxic pollutants, one of which is DDT, before the year 2000”
That was the position before Stockholm Treaty, now they offer conditional support for the use of DDT.
Ann, what you say is GP policy ie “Some countries will be permitted to continue using some of the above POPs for specific uses, such as DDT for malaria control. Yet such uses will be restricted and only permitted for a certain amount of time.”
WWF say “DDT should be phased out of use and ultimately banned”
Richard Liroff later said “If the alternatives to DDT aren’t working, as they weren’t in South Africa, geez, you’ve got to use it. ”
Maybe everybody should just mind their own bussiness.
rog: opium is a good fix too but we can’t let human nature have its own way can we?
This is like watching cockroaches scurrying when you turn on the light in a scurvy tenement.
Lots of people blaming lots of things and denial running rampant.
Mark my words, within a few years you will see greenpeacers on trial for genocide.
They won’t be what you’d call the “usual suspects.” Those who will be hung or imprisoned for genocide will be those who sold out their corporate interests to greenies.
This will include executives from tobacco companies, European importers of “organic” food, and others.
Rachael Carson could be indicted, but being dead, she’s beyond the reach of the law. But if there is justice in the afterlife, demons are poking her flabby buttocks with manure forks. And they will do so, for at least as long as it takes for Africans to enjoy the freedom from disease that others have.
Ann – for moderates yes we might agree.
“within a few years you will see greenpeacers on trial for genocide” and exactly what do you know about that Schiller?
Ann, I support that proposition wholeheartedly – with one caveat ; even legitimate wildlife concerns must NEVER be put ahead of human life.
Unfortunately however , we are not getting anywhere in the search for an answer to the reasons for the original decision which appears to have had some pretty appalling consequences.
Rog – clipping snippets and closing the frame. Get a job on 60 Minutes. Your own links, flushed out by Sir Steve Munn’s actions, have exposed the sophistry of your position.
“demons are poking her flabby buttocks with manure forks”
Gee Thurkettle – I’m sure this isn’t personal.
Genocide ? – Schiller you are seriously deluded. Genocide is Iraq mate. State sanctioned.
Jen – just tell me are you, with the evidence available, letting some idiot keep raving on about “genocide”.
Where’s the standards.
BTW Thurkettle – we’ve just driven a John Deere tractor through your sleazy specious argument. That’s what you don’t like. Bleating continuously about holocausts doesn’t make it reality mate.
It’s just brownwash.
And NOW European importers of organic food will be HUNG for genocide – HOLY DOOLEY – are you such a fascist that you are going to dictate what people can eat – how totalitarian can you get.
And of course now it is exposed – as much as you guys rant about the left and their agendas – you right wing flesh crawling scum (just using a well used Ian Mott language precedent) are really just manipulative Hitleresque dictators in disguise. You’re anti-freedom, unpatriotic, anti opportunity, anti new capitalism. We’ve fought wars against rampant ideologues like you guys.
Talk about the enemy within.
Disgusted and appalled.
I’m still waiting for an apology from Schiller for twice misrepresenting me within the space of a few hours on two different threads. Given what he has written above, I’ll just keep waiting. He is seriously offensive.
Jim,
Yes,some decions by the environmental movement have been wrong….they admit that.
But who to blame for those unfortunate people who died?
Greenpeace as an organisation does not have deep knowledge on issues like malaria and other medical issues. Well, they ask ” experts” for advice.
Maybe we should as well ” blame” some powerful physicans for not speaking out???
Hey, some articles in the Lancet ,JAMA, Nature and Science including some prominent national journals might have saved lives? Just my opinion.
This argument has gone stupid. Many environmental groups pressed for a total DDT ban. Malaria Foundation International coordinated a campaign to have the indoor use of DDT exempted. When this campaign was successful the environmental groups recanted because they really had no choice — to continue to press for a total ban would be to effectively advocate the deaths of millions.
DDT was subsequently effectively banned, however. USAID and the WHO did not promote the use of DDT in the fight against malaria; without their support very little DDT was used. USAID and the WHO have only recently begun to actively advocate DDT use. It therefore appears that the effective ban has been overturned. Time will tell.
Thanks Beck for the clarification.
Greenpeace should refrain from interfering with issues in which they have no competency.
Rog, don’t try to pick a fight with me, you should know by now that I’m no longer a Greenpeace volunteer.
Yes, I have taken part in GP toxic campaigns, however never against DDT.
Well, this was one of GP’s toxic campaigns. Note I did NOT campaign on this!!!! Actually, dunno if I dare to post it, well, we need some levity!
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1995778,00.html
I am not trying to pick a fight with you Ann, it is just a simple statement.
Somehow all this “activism” has become a battle of personalities. Just read the letters section of the papers, all the vitriol and scorn expressed over the most ordinary of activities.
Just kidding Rog;)
OK, back again to Greenpeace.
They see the Stockholm Convention, and the phasing out of POPs as one of their biggest victories together with the moratorium on commercial whaling.
So it must have been a bit hard for the GP people to re-evaluate their opinion on DDT.
Ann (bless her) points us to wobbly plastics (PVC)
Given that I once worked alongside the largest benzene storage in the southern hemisphere and often monitored the chlorine gas plant escapes by visual means I had to read between the lines on a daily basis.
One survives in these industries only by learning fast. A little mate working over the fence for a much longer period never quite understood how he made it through to retirement but his next of kin reminded us this year he became an “escaped” prisoner of war in Europe before returning to fight on the other side
Any one who doubts this Australian experience is advised to read our own literature from DDT to “How might I be exposed to phthalates”
Australian industry in 1943
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/625.html
http://www.chemlink.com.au/csr.htm
From industry to your home “state of knowledge report in 2001”
“Air toxics and indoor air quality in Australia”
http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/sok/phthalates.html
link to diabetes 2007
http://www.diabetesnsw.com.au/research_pages/PlasticChemicalLink.asp
myweb.westnet.com.au/ctarr/healthierhumans/toys.htm
and so on
Don’t suck your dummy!
Will Jen Marohasy apologise for her untruthful slur against WWF?
What do you reckon Jennifer said about WWF that is untrue?
‘Mark my words, within a few years you will see greenpeacers on trial for genocide.
They won’t be what you’d call the “usual suspects.” Those who will be hung or imprisoned for genocide will be those who sold out their corporate interests to greenies.
Rachael Carson could be indicted, but being dead, she’s beyond the reach of the law. But if there is justice in the afterlife, demons are poking her flabby buttocks with manure forks. And they will do so, for at least as long as it takes for Africans to enjoy the freedom from disease that others have. – Schiller
RAOTFLMAO! My goodness Thurkettle I take a break from this blog only to find your paranoia has escalalted into full scale mania in my absence.. lay off the mescalin it is seriously not good for you.
Is John Berlau’s book’ Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazaardous to Your Health’ the one that claims in its marketing blurb that Asbestos isn’t dangerous?