Rachel Carson ; mass murderer

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
lifting a ban on DDT would be a stupid thing to do.
SA sees ‘dramatic reduction in malaria cases’
Tshabalala-Msimang says the use of DDT has seen a drastic reduction in malaria infections
September 18, 2007, 16:30

Health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, says cooperation between South Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique has led to a 90% reduction in new malaria infections in the three countries.

Tshabala-Msimang says this has been achieved through the use of Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), an agent that kills the malaria-carrying mosquitoes. She was speaking at one of the commissions of the People's Assembly in Bizana, which was discussing the health situation in the country.

She says the reduction was achieved because of the countries' refusal to listen to those who preached against the use of DDT.

“… They wanted to tell us that we mustn't use DDT for indoor residual spraying because it destroys vegetables and… fauna and we just said, ‘Look in Europe they conquered malaria because they used DDT’… The Italians told us that, ‘Don't listen to what they are saying, we conquered malaria because we just killed the mosquitoes’ (sic),” said Tshabalala-Msimang.
 

Vereya

Council Member
Apr 20, 2006
2,003
54
48
Tula
So assuming, just assuming, for the moment that using DDT could save human lives, are there people on this board saying the birds or any other organism that is barely self-aware, are more worthy of life than humans?

It's not that birds are worthier of life than humans. Humans have got medicine, if they feel sick, they can do something about it. Humans know the dangerous substances well enough to stay away from them. Birds and animals surviving in the wild have no medicine. There is nothing they can do to protect themselves from humans' dangerous inventions. It is time we took the responsibility for what we are doing to the eco-system upon ourselves. Somehow, few people truly realize that animal species' extinction will ultimately lead to human beings' extinction. We are just a part of the system here on earth, and to preserve ourselves, we've got to preserve the other parts of it.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
This is all bull-sh|it anyways. The arguments out there are that the banning of DDT has caused millions of deaths from malaria. Malaria causes deaths, but more to the point, DDT would not remain as efficient at it's job. The mosquitoes would have continued to develop resistance to it. DDT-resistant mosquitoes were discovered in 1959. While it's use was being scaled back for health reasons, it was being increasingly used in agriculture, which only exacerbates the resistance problems, as tropical mosquitoes became resistant, and we had a surge in malaria deaths.
 

Cosmo

House Member
Jul 10, 2004
3,725
22
38
Victoria, BC
I've been reading this thread with some interest. Since I was entirely ignorant of the whole subject, I've spent some time reading this morning.

First, I agree with Dexter ... to say Carson is a mass murderer is absurd. She was one of the first ecologists and hats off to her for her foresight.

Having said that, I also think that the science she based opinions on back in 1962 was not the same science we have today. That field changes rapidly.

As well, Carson didn't call for a ban on DDT, she called for responsible use of the product. Back then it was a little does good, a lot must be better. That led to ecological issues. Anyone who doesn't see the problem when any eco system is destroyed is very short sighted. Whatever happens in nature will eventually happen to us humans too. If you can't see taking a solid ecological stand for the sheer moral correctness of it, people ought, at very least, consider survival of their own species.

I've been reading stuff from both sides of the issue. Seems to me that judicious use of DDT may be a good thing. Hells bells ... did you see the stats on the bed bug outbreak??? Blech. I do not want those things sleeping with me. I'll take my chances with some carefully used insecticide, thanks very much.

I believe there needs to be a balance between spraying everything that moves and a total ban on certain chemicals like DDT. Weighing the good of the product (malaria is nasty!) against the damage and I think that careful, responsible use of the product is indicated. To worry about DDT when we are so busy polluting with everything else seems silly to me. Particularly in less developed countries. Their laws allow industry to dispose of waste in an appalling manner, yet DDT to stop malaria is not allowed? Perhaps there are bigger issues that need addressed than DDT?

As with most things, moderation seems the key. I figure clear cut logging does as much damage as pesticides (ask the grey whales). It's only one issue out of a myriad of problems and one that carries a high value toward saving human lives. That weighs heavily in its favour, imho.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
This is all bull-sh|it anyways. The arguments out there are that the banning of DDT has caused millions of deaths from malaria. Malaria causes deaths, but more to the point, DDT would not remain as efficient at it's job. The mosquitoes would have continued to develop resistance to it. DDT-resistant mosquitoes were discovered in 1959. While it's use was being scaled back for health reasons, it was being increasingly used in agriculture, which only exacerbates the resistance problems, as tropical mosquitoes became resistant, and we had a surge in malaria deaths.
Malaria has not returned to Ontario, thankfully.
 

JoeSchmoe

Time Out
May 28, 2007
214
24
18
Vancouver Island
It should (and is) banned in countries where it isn't necessary since it is quite a dangerous chemical.

They are using DDT in countries where malaria is a bigger problem than birth defects and neurological problems from DDT spraying would be. Hopefully they are using it in a safer manner than how it used to be used... which seems to be the case. But there are still human health consequences (and ecological ones too) from using the chemical.

Pregnant women exposed to the insecticide DDT are much more likely to give birth prematurely, or to full-term but low birth weight babies, says a US team. Although DDT is now banned in the developed world, it is still widely used elsewhere to combat malaria, particularly in Africa.
"One of the reasons this finding is important is there are not any generally accepted adverse health effects of exposure to DDT or its metabolite, DDE, in humans," says researcher Matthew Longnecker of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina.
http://media.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1012
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
46
Newfoundland!
DDT is virtually immortal. It hangs around for thousands of years in any ecosystem into which it is released.

If it was a product used in cosmetics, people wouldn't even question that it should be banned.

As it is, it has a doubtful possible use in killing/repelling mosquitos, which have a remarkable ability to become immune to such chemical attacks, and has already been known to develop some reisstance to DDT.

So what do you want? A DDT-infected world for the rest of the existance of the human race and some super-mosquitos carrying malaria everywhere with nothing to stop them, or a bit of sense, possibly accompanied by an effort to provide people in the third-world with decent healthcare so that malaria becomes less of a killer?
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
We have Malaria in Canada. We have the anopheles genus of mosquito, and Ontario averaged 2.2 cases per 100,000 from 1990-2002.
All of these cases were imported, so I'll say it again, "Malaria has not returned to Ontario, thankfully." We used DDT to get rid of the mosquitoes that carried the disease.
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
But it has returned to Ontario, it's simply not endemic anymore. That's not to say it won't happen again. Resistance in the Plasmodium genus could result in the disease spreading back to our Anopheles mosquitoes.

DDT wasn't used here to eradicate Malaria. And it certainly didn't eradicate the mosquitoes which can carry it. This is the problem with our pesticides, the pests adapt and then we need new chemicals.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
An Alphabet Soup of Chemical Myths
Author: Review by Jay Lehr, Ph.D.
Published by: The Heartland Institute
Published in: Environment News
Publication date: April 2008

The True Story of DDT, PCB, and Dioxin
By Przemystaw Mastalerz
Wydawnictwo Chemiczne, 2005
226 pages, $20, ISBN-13: 9788390577654
Environmental advocacy groups have spared no effort to create the impression that organochlorines are extremely resistant to degradation and thus difficult to remove from the environment.
Contrary to these beliefs, there is plentiful evidence that biodegradation of these substances is widespread everywhere.
Moreover, in the quantities commonly found in the environment, organochlorines are not hazardous to human health.

Scares Support Activist Agendas
Przemystaw Mastalerz has taught organic chemistry at the Technical University in Warsaw, Poland for 40 years. During this time he has become aware of the tremendous misinformation affecting public opinion regarding organochlorines such as DDT, dioxin, and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).
Mastalerz tells us, "environmentalists rarely mention and always belittle the degradation of DDTs and dioxins because natural processes which remove toxins from the environment help to dispel the horror which in public opinion surrounds environmental contaminants. The existence of their scare-mongering organizations would be much more difficult to justify in a society free of these horrors."

No Danger to Humans
The author is adamant in his argument that overzealous environmentalists reject scientific opinions whenever these opinions do not agree with their canons of faith. He is right. They ignore, for example, all the data proving DDT is not a danger to humans ... and that it is, in fact, the most effective defense against malaria-carrying mosquitoes.
Similarly, PCBs, which were used for many years as heat transfer agents in transformers and capacitors, have been proven to be without consequence to either the environment or human health. Nevertheless, the drumbeat of fear over these compounds continues.
Dioxins, which are created in high-temperature combustion of organic materials, have long been demonized as being deadly to humans. This book clearly outlines the evidence that the only human impact is little more than a skin rash called chloracne.
Moreover, dioxins are not a strange creation of human industrial activity--they have been found in clays identified as being 40 million years old. Unfortunately, it appears it will take a long time before people accept the fact that dioxins were always with us, and abandon the idea that they are exclusively manmade, hazardous chemicals.

Myths Dispelled
The True Story of DDT, PCB, and Dioxin powerfully documents these largely ignored facts. The author does not shy away from challenging the scientifically unsupportable general beliefs and official politics reported uncritically in the media.
Until now, the relevant facts have been buried deep among library shelves that were not readily accessible to the public. Their exposure in this book may help demystify another unsubstantiated environmental scare story.
Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (lehr@heartland.org) is science director for The Heartland Institute.