Why must they attack the eagles? Polar Bears and Eagles. What is next for the right wing? The Bull Moose?

Bob Carter is a Exxon employee and promoter of oil & coal development. He thinks the great barrier reef is doing just fine and even though its dying off in large sections he claims that's simply due to natural cycles not cause by the increasingly higher amounts of pollutants and chemical runoffs building up off the coast. Carter thinks that higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will be good for everyone and allow us to grow more food...but he forgets that the arable land will also be occupied by 2 billion coastal refugees. To the Right Carter's become the proverbial lonely lampost where they can confortably look for their lost quarter in the night....even though they dropped it a long way back down the street.

Nobody questions that DDT did cause some harm to the environment. We do know that DDT harms some bird species as well. What we also know is that there is no other insecticides that is more effective at controlling the spread of malaria than DDT, period. It is human tradgedy that approximately two million people a year are dying of malaria while we have a potent and effective insecticide that could save most of those lives. But the truth is that we are allowing millions of people to die every year because of unjustified environmental paranoia.

Recently the use of DDT has been re-introduced in some African countries with great success. The spread of malaria has been reduced dramtically in some areas by simply spraying the walls of homes once a year with small amounts of DDT. Used in small quantities DDT has proven to be safe and not harmful to the environment. And any health consequences associated with the use of DDT in these countries is certainly more than offset by the lives being saved.

There was a very informative article written by Tina Rosenberg of the NY Time Magazine on this subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/11DDT.html?ex=1397016000&en=4ebf5b1fab869680&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Are you a proponent of saving lives or just hawking the sale of DDT?

Do the benefits of DDT really outweigh the negatives? Is the use of the same amount of DDT just spread out over a larger area, as you suggest, more benign? How do we understand the chronic effects of this chemical on people over a lifetime? Personally, I would defer to treatment of disease versus use of chemicals.

But big pharma doesnt make money off of poor sick people - I forgot.

Did you read the article BriMan, or are you just going to assume that DDT is bad because someone else tells you so? The fact is that two million people are dying every year in third world countries from malaria. DDT is by far the most effective way to prevent the spread of malaria and there is no other insecticide that even comes close.

Are you serious when you question whether the use of DDT outweighs the negatives? How about the prevention of the annual deaths of two million human beings. duh. I'm sure that the children who are dying of malaria aren't all that concerned about the "chronic effects on people over a lifetime". From their perspective the choice is life or death, not whether or not DDT is healthy for the environment.

The fear over DDT is based on hysteria more than facts. The tragic part of all this is that people are dying because of that type of ignorance.

Well, with global warming malaria might head north into the United States.

I wrote the forward to Rachel Carson's newest edition of Silent Spring. It had a huge impact on my outlook and I would suggest others read it also.

There seems to be false choice developing here.

One argument states that we can't protect the environment by banning DDT because people in the developing world will no longer have protection from malaria.

This is a false choice. Everyone here wants to protect people from malaria and everyone here wants to protect bald eagles and the brown pelican.

The first thing I did when I read this blog was seek out some facts.

I checked wikipedia, which isn't always right, but in this case it points out that Mexico doesn't use DDT anymore and uses a combination of other mechanisms that have a better cost/effectiveness than DDT.

The real question is why are the best practices in Mexico not being exported to other parts of the world? What are the barriers to get these programs started in other parts of the world? Why isn't anyone doing anything about solving this problem?

The bottom line is people always want to pit the environment versus business and jobs because they know it's an effective means to scare people that if they support even a basic response to environmental problems that somehow they will outsourced within five minutes.

My point is we need to start thinking differently about how the economy can be benifitted by new ways of approaching environmental protection.
It's not always the case that either business wins or the environment wins. (sometimes it is, but not always and not in this case)

The real issue is that environmental policy is being written by a bunch of third rate business people who think the only way to save money is to layoff when the real problem is they don't have a clue about finance.

They buy up a bunch of assets that produce little or no cash with debt, then turn around when they can't keep the lights on and their profits are eroding, so they cut staff because that's the only thing they know how to do.

I don't know about anyone here, but I don't want these types running environmental policy. Unfortunately, usually the people that can't actually do anything productive in industry to create value end up as lobbyists in washington or they are a new appointment to the EPA.

Why are some conservatives so worried about the developing world but only when it comes to DDT? I really wish that they'd be identified as "The DDT wing" of the Republican Party so they stop giving the rest of us a bad name. I wish we could ask every candidate that capoliticalnews.com supports including The Sec of State if they think Rachel Carson was a genocidal racist like the article on capoliticalnews.com intones that all environmentalist are.

Samson, your response selectively quoted Wikipedia. By no means is it clear that a total ban on DDT is practical or even desirable. Here is some additional information available in the Wikipedia article that you failed to mention in your response:

"There are no substantial scientific studies so far which prove that DDT is particularly toxic to humans or other primates, compared to other widely-used pesticides. DDT can be applied directly to clothes and used in soap, with no demonstrated ill effects. Indeed, DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning."

"Malaria afflicts between 300 million and 500 million people every year. The World Health Organization estimates that around 1 million people die of malaria and malaria-related illness every year. About 90% of these deaths occur in Africa, mostly to children under the age of 5. The economic impact includes costs of health care, working days lost due to sickness, days lost in education, decreased productivity due to brain damage from cerebral malaria, and loss of investment and tourism."

"Residual house spraying involves the treatment of all interior walls and ceilings with insecticide, and is particularly effective against mosquitoes, which favour indoor resting before or after feeding. Advocated as the mainstay of malaria eradication programmes in the late 1950s and 1960s, DDT remains a major component of control programmes in southern African states, though many countries have abandoned or curtailed their spraying activities. Swaziland, Mozambique and Ecuador are examples of countries that have very successfully reduced malaria infestations with DDT."

"At the same time, use of DDT as an agricultural insecticide was often unrestricted, and restrictions were often evaded, especially in developing coutries where malaria is rife, so that resistance continued to grow. This has generated two related controversies. The first, involving debate among professionals working on malaria control concerns the appropriate role of DDT. The range of disagreement here is relatively small. Few believe either that large scale spraying should be resumed or that the use of DDT should be abandoned altogether. The debate focuses on the relative merits of DDT and alternative pesticides as well as complementary use of interior wall spraying and insecticide-treated bednets.

"A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal argues that the campaign against malaria is failing, that funding of malaria control should therefore be increased, and that use of DDT should be considered since DDT has 'a remarkable safety record when used in small quantities for indoor spraying in endemic regions.'"

"After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400% increase in malaria deaths. Today, thanks to DDT, the number of deaths from malaria in the region is less than 50 per year. South Africa could afford and did try newer alternatives to DDT, but they proved less effective. Uganda also began permitting the use of DDT in anti-malarial efforts, despite a threat that its agricultural exports to Europe could be banned if they were contaminated with DDT. The Ugandan government has stated that it cannot achieve its development goals without first eliminating malaria. The GDP shows a striking correlation between malaria and poverty, where malaria is estimated to reduce per capita growth by 1.3 percent per annum."

"Malaria cases increased in South America after countries in that continent stopped using DDT. Only Ecuador, which has continued to use DDT, has seen a reduction in the number of malaria cases in recent years. Other mosquito-borne diseases are also on the rise. Until the 1970s, DDT was used to eradicate the Aedes aegypti mosquito from most tropical regions of the Americas. The reinvasion of Aedes aegypti since has brought devastating outbreaks of dengue fever, dengue hemorrhagic fever, and a renewed threat of urban yellow fever."

There is a lot of information in that article that supports at least looking into the continued use of DDT as an insecticide in helping to control the spread of disease in third-world countries. At the very least there should be consideration given to its use and more reasearch done on the subject. What troubles me is the knee-jerk reaction by people around here that DDT is automatically bad and that anybody who advocates using it hates the environment. It seems to me that many people on this blog have blinders on and refuse to do any research on the subject. Intersting how the pseudo-intellectuals around here are quick to decry the so-called ignorance and alleged anti-science position of conservatives but are essentially ignoring science themselves in refusing to even consider further scientific study on the possible benefits of DDT. It seems to me that in this instance it is the liberals that want to go back to the dark ages.

Interesting that you break the DDT argument down in terms of liberal vs conservative. Its not a political issue, its an environmental issue. Its also an extremely complicated issue where lives may be saved by increased use of DDT but perhaps MORE lives would be lost due to increases in DDT-resistant vermin & pests, along with mosquitoes, and the increase of crop destruction due to the DDT-related die offs of many prey species. Sure, DDT should be used, with care. And no, DDT shouldn't be used wholesale, without regard for its environmental dominoe effects. But like the effects of Climate Change, neither liberals nor conservatives are the source of the answers for DDT.

Gary,

I'm not the one who made this a liberal versus conservative issue, Brian did when he created this thread. Go back and re-read his comments.

Brian Dennert:
"The Bald Eagle was threatened with extinction from a variety of factors including DDT until some liberals used the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to further protect it."

"But recently, I kid you not, some so-called conservatives have been arguing to bring DDT back. I thought they were just messing around. But they are deadly serious about it."

Balding Eagle added the following comment:
"Why must they attack the eagles? Polar Bears and Eagles. What is next for the right wing? The Bull Moose?"

Graham said the following:
"Why are some conservatives so worried about the developing world but only when it comes to DDT? I really wish that they'd be identified as "The DDT wing" of the Republican Party so they stop giving the rest of us a bad name."

So what gives Gary? Why do you ignore three other people who make DDT an issue of liberals against conservatives? If it is not a political issue as you say then your response should have been directed at more people than just me.

Bubba, I brought up the fact that some so called "conservatives" were supporting DDT because it is true.

The story is from capoliticalnews.com, a conservative political website.

Also, if you click on the links for The Liberals and the ESA you will see a picture of Nixon. My point is that DDT is a settled issue for 99% of Americans, but not for capolitcalnews.com. They are to the right of Richard Nixon on this issue.

And for Balding Eagle's comment. I think she was referring to the progressive tradition of The Republican Party manifested under TR ( Roosevelt went Bull Mooose Party after he couldn't get Republicans to nominate him and continue the progressive agenda.), when she asked if they'd attack the Bull Moose, I take it as an attack on the best of America's progressive traditions.

I was not so much trying to make it a political issue with partisan ramifications, as much as I was pointing out it already was one.

I'd love to support a candidiate running against a candidate from the DDT wing of the Republican Party any day and throw the albatross of DDT around their neck on any given Tuesday in November.

?

Bubba like most extremist conservatives is used to drinking the Kool Aide, DDT, whatever his overlords tell him to drink. A Lemming if I ever saw one!

BubbaKidd, my apologies. I wrongly thought we had moved past the initial politics of the situation and were starting to get into the meat of the science debate.

As usual, the left-wing eco-nazis can't discuss an argument based on the facts so they have to go back into smear mode. Thankyou Here & Jimmy for proving my point. Not one of you has been able to refute a single thing I have posted but have to make up things like "DDT is a settled issue for 99% of Americans". Really? Where did you get this factoid from, the DNC propaganda newsletter? Please.

You guys can't even manage to google up any facts of your own so you resort to the standard "extremist conservative" rhetoric that only proves that you have no real minds of your own. Funny how you self-proclaimed progressives like to lecture everyone else but are so quick to smear and shout down anyone who doesn't buy into your group-think ideology. Sounds more like the nazi party to me.

GS,

I will make an exception in your case. You seem to be the only one here who at least provided a thoughtful response rather than the typical knee-jerk response to DDT. My only point has been that we should at least consider the merits of DDT in saving lives in third-world countries. We owe it to them to, at the very least, do more scientific research on the subject and make informed decisions. Something that some others around here are obviously afraid to do.

Actually I am a republican. So basically anyone who does not agree with Bubba is a Nazi according to him. He cries about "smears" and then calls everyone "Nazis". Uh, okay Bubba, take a deep breath and count to 10.

Hey Jimmy, how about contributing some facts or at least some reasonable arguments to the discussion. Or is that too much to ask of you?

Brian,

For the record I didn't intend to be harsh in my response to you. My earlier response was directed more toward Jimmy.

On the DDT issue, I think that it is worth more scientific research instead of dismissing it outright because of popular opinion against its use. I doubt that the average citizen knows enough about the pros and cons of DDT to render a very informed opinon. But when we have a million people dying every year from malaria we should keep all options on the table, even if some of those options might not be politically correct. If there is a better solution than the use of DDT then even better, but if DDT makes sense in some cases then we should give it consideration. All I'm saying is that we should be open-minded on the subject and do the research so that decisions are based on the facts and not blind assumptions.

Hold on! It wasn't 'public opinion" that chose to ban DDT in the US, it was a decision made by govt agencies acting on the conclusions of lots of research. And it was the WHO working in concert with the World Bank that blocked the loans and grants to 3rd world countries that was making DDT so popular in the first place. When science can show that the benefits of using DDT outweigh the risks, then it will probably be used once again. As of today, science hasn't been able to remake that conclusion.

Gary, the reasearch against DDT is by no means conclusive, nor is opposition to the use of DDT universal in the scientific community. Hundreds of doctors and public health experts, including three Nobel Prize winners recently petitioned the United Nations not to ban DDT for house spraying in malarious regions.

It is malaria-free western countries that are trying to push through the worldwide DDT ban. Strangely enough, the group most likely to benefit from a total ban on DDT is pesticide manufacturers who would then sell more expensive, and less effective products in its place.

In over 50 years of use there have been no valid reports of adverse effects of DDT on humans. None. In Africa DDT is still the most effective means of reducing deadly insect-borne diseases, including malaria and yellow fever. Malaria alone afflicts roughly 200 million people worldwide every year, killing more than 2 million a year. During the years DDT was routinely used in these countries there was dramatic progress in reducing disease and death.

The negative impact of DDT was largely due to its overuse in agriculture, not from use for malaria control. But more importantly, the supposed environmental benefits gained by banning DDT are not worth the very real suffering and loss of human life in poor nations. With the reduction in use of DDT we are seeing malaria rates that are beginning to surpass those last seen in the 1940s. No pubic health program without the use of DDT has been effective in stopping the progression of global malaria.

Finally, DDT is safer than many other commonly used chemical insecticides. World Health Organization documents have also consistently characterized DDT sprayed houses as the most cost effective and safe approach to malaria control. The British Medical Journal has also called for the re-thinking of the DDT ban.

I'm amazed that everybody here is so paranoid about DDT that they refuse to even consider the possibility that we might have been wrong in pursuing a global ban. Just because scientists might have felt one way 30 years ago doesn't mean that there isn't new evidence that might cause many to change their minds. Even our understanding of global warming has changed dramatically over the past ten years, so why is it so hard to believe that we might have been wrong on DDT?

BK,

Good points, I will engage in the science but first...

Do you really think that Rachel Carson and other enviros were trying to kill people? If you charge someone with genocide it is hard to move past.

Bubba:

The statement you wrote above is flat out false.

"In over 50 years of use there have been no valid reports of adverse effects of DDT on humans."

The EPA classifies DDT as a class B2 carcinogen and states that "actue oral exposure to high doses of DDT in humans results in central nervous system effects such as headaches, nausea, and convulsions."

As I understand it, a long term effects study of DDT has not been performed. However, there have been conflicting studies regarding DDT with regards to low birth weight, pre-term births, pancreatic and breast cancer.

Also, according to the EPA, "animal studies have reported incidence of liver tumors in mice and hamsters and thyroid tumors in female rats from oral exposure to DDE." DDE represents the breakdown by-product of DDT.

So, let's wager. You and the pro-DDT crowd should eat, drink, bathe, and wash with DDT for ten years while this republican and the rest of the Bubba-described eco-nazis on this page will keep doing what we are doing. In ten years we'll see what long term effects DDT will have.

You could prove us all wrong. How about it?

As a pro-DDT advocate why wouldn't you subject you and your family to it daily if you believe it's perfectly fine?

Bubba: You also stated, "Malaria alone afflicts roughly 200 million people worldwide every year, killing more than 2 million a year. During the years DDT was routinely used in these countries there was dramatic progress in reducing disease and death."

You used actual statistical numbers for today, but what were the numbers for 1940? Lastly, it looks like from your numbers, one would only have a 1% chance of death from malaria based on the numbers. So, for every 100 people with malaria, one dies?

Happy Fourth of July, everyone! And remember, today marks the day when Liberal America turned its back on King & Conservatives! God Bless America!

Interesting article on the front page of the LA Times regarding DDT and the effects it had on babies born in the US to mothers emigrating from Mexico. According to the article, the babies born to the mothers exposed to the insecticide, have neurological effects that were severe enough in some cases to slow their mental and physical development.

Brian,

I do not think that environmentalists like Rachel Carson are out to kill people. It is my opinion that most environmentalists are trying to do good things for humanity, and in most instances the results of their work leads to positive results. But that also doesn't mean that environmentalists are always right or that their assumptions are always based on solid research and objective scientific study.

At the same time, I don't believe that conservatives sit around and conspire on how they can destroy the environment. There are many environmental issues that are not as black and white as some people would like to believe and we should be able to engage in intelligent, informed debate of those issues without trying to villainize the other side.

On the DDT issue we have a clear case where millions of people are dying from infectious diseases and the world community should be looking at all possible options on how to help people in need. What I see from environmentalists and many people on this blog is a group-think mentality that blinds them to even engaging in a rational discussion of the facts.

Samson,

What I said is not false. You were the one who earlier cited Widipedia on the DDT issue. Here is what your own source says on the subject, "There are no substantial scientific studies so far which prove that DDT is particularly toxic to humans or other primates, compared to other widely-used pesticides. DDT can be applied directly to clothes and used in soap, with no demonstrated ill effects. Indeed, DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning." -- that is from YOUR source.

You also discussed the EPA classification of DDT as a B2 carcinogen, but that classification was based on “actue oral exposure to high doses of DDT in humans”. Using your logic I’d like to point out that studies have also classified Vitamin E as a carcinogen in humans if given in high enough doses. Does that mean that Vitamin E is unsafe at any dose? Obviously not.

What you are ignoring is that the use of DDT for the control of malaria is in very low amounts and it is not ingested orally. DDT has been proven effective and safe for malaria control for decades. The information you gave from the EPA was selective at best and certainly not applicable in the context of how DDT is used for malaria control. In this instance we are not talking about oral exposure to high doses of DDT, so your argument is irrelevant. Even in your own words you state that there are “conflicting studies” on this issue. Given the fact that 2 million people are dying unnecessarily due to malaria I think we owe it to them to at least keep on open mind and do more research on the issue. I don’t see why you and others have such a problem with that.

Your argument that those that support using DDT should “eat, drink, bathe, and wash” in it is just plain nonsense. Nobody is advocating drinking DDT, what we’re talking about is using very small amounts as an insecticide for malaria control. Using your logic we should impose a global ban on all chemicals and insecticides unless we are willing to drink and bathe in it. That is just ridiculous and totally illogical.

As far as exposing my family to it, if there were a high risk of insect-borne malaria where I lived I wouldn’t hesitate in using DDT in order to protect my family. It is easy for you to say that you wouldn’t use it since your family isn’t at risk and the millions of people that are needlessly dying are on the other side of the planet. But I guess that’s not your problem.

Here is a quote from the story that started this whole mess ( from capolitcalnews.com):

Rachel Carson and her "Silent Spring" scam against pesticides. She claimed that DDT was bad for health. Yet the facts are, that Leftists wanted to stop the use of DDT, a pesticide, in order to control the "wrong" population. Just like Marget Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) used abortion to promote the killing of non-whites (she was a KKK type racist) Carson and her ilk were targeting the "over-population: of Africa by blacks.

Bubba, simple question. Do you condemn the attack on enviromentalists that call them genocidal killers? I hope you don't change the subject before you answer. I just cannot fathom that anyone gives capoliticalnews a serious look when they think that Earth Day was started by the moral equals as Nazis.

I know that the extremists that hate the environmentalists don't represent mainstream views.

Mr 93065,

I don't read calpolitical news and I don't agree with their attacks on Rachel Carson.

It is unfair to automatically cast people who favor scientific research into the possible use of DDT to curb the global spread of malaria as right-wing extremist who hate the environment. There are literally hundreds of doctors and public health experts who believe that the use of DDT to control the spread of malaria in third-world countries should be considered. This is about saving lives. It is a very serious topic that has merit and should be discussed in a open-minded, rational manner.

I'm facinated how the same folks that want to educate the public on issues like global warming are all too quick to shut their eyes and plug their ears to scientific research that might prove that DDT could literally save millions of lives. Either you support objective scientific research or you don't. But it is intellectually dishonest to cherry-pick facts and choose which ones you want to use and which ones you want to discard if they don't fit pre-conceived conclusions.

Bubba--

I like how you say we are all too quick to shut our eyes to scientific research and just ignore Barbra's great comment regarding the LA Times article. Does that not count as scientific research? If anyone is selectively picking the facts they like and the facts they don't it's you.

Vitamin E is not listed in the same category as DDT by the EPA? It's not my logic, it's the facts. Go attack the EPA.

Speaking of facts. Did you ever find those FACTS to back up this comment?

"Malaria alone afflicts roughly 200 million people worldwide every year, killing more than 2 million a year. During the years DDT was routinely used in these countries there was dramatic progress in reducing disease and death."

What was the reduction rate?

According to YOUR logic since the US ban on DDT, we should have seen a precipitous rise in Malaria rates in the US. This would be the deductive inverse correct?

Bubba Logic...

DDT= Malaria case reductions
No DDT= Malaria case increases.

I checked with the CDC and do you know how many malaria cases we had in 2002? 1,337.

Of those 1,337 cases 5 were not imported from other countries.

How is it that since the end of DDT, we have not seen a rise in Malaria in the US? You would think we'd see a big rise in malaria cases in the US, but it hasn't happened.

I recently read a Washington Post editorial from Mary Berenbaum who heads the department of entomology at the Univerity of Illinois. She pointed out that, "By 1972, when the US DDT ban went into effect, 19 species of mosquitos capable of transmitting malaria, including some in Africa, were resistant to DDT."

Ever heard of the rate of return? Over time, DDT has become less and less effective because mosquitos develop resistence to it.

She also goes on to point out that "pockets of resistance to DDT in some mosquito species in Africa are already well documented."

She goes on to argue that we need maximum flexibility in addressing this problem, but that "overselling a chemical's capactiy to solve problems can do irretrievable harm not only by raising false hopes, but by delaying the use of more effective long-term methods."

So, where are your facts? I find it ironic that you won't take my bet calling it "nonsense". Are you saying that only Africa should be subjected to DDT, but you yourself are not willing to use that chemical on a daily basis. If it's harmless as you argued, why wouldn't you?

Lastly, I read an article on global trade implications. Because DDT accumulates in the food chain European Union countries are now putting and preparing to put up non-tarriff barriers because African food has DDT on it for export. European Union countries do not want a member of the "dirty dozen" in their food supply.

So, Africa from a development standpoint could potentially grow poorer as a result of DDT use because they can't export.

Bubba-- Do you think Europe and the US should allow food exports from countries that utilize DDT? Would you support lifting the ban today to make your argument globally consistent? Or is it just Africa that only should get a member of the dirty dozen?

Knowing what we know from recent studies that Barbra gave us and that we really don't know the long term effects of DDT on the human body, would you allow your family to buy fruits and vegetables from countries that use DDT regularly?

After all, you wouldn't want Africa to get poorer from DDT use would you?

Bubba, this whole thing started because capolitcalnews.com posted a story equating Earth Day with a Nazi Rally.

Don't you see why it is a waste to argue with something like that? The appropriate response is ridicule. I hope any candidate that advertizes on that website gets asked tough questions, like if the local Sierra Club is engaged in a criminal conspiracy to kill people. By giving money to that website, they aren't endorsing everything on it. But they aren't condemning it either. I can't think mainstream Republicans like Arnold would want their picture taken with the conspiracy theorists amongst us.

DDT has been shown to cause children to have mental disabilities that cannot be reversed. Malaria can be treated and other forms of pesticides have not been shown to cause the type of mental defects seen in infants whose mothers were exposed to DDT. DDT is also known to degrade at a rate much slower than other toxics, once put into an enviroment.

Brian and Doc:

Also read an article on pesticides such as DDT and prevalence of Parkinson's disease. I want o make clear this isn't a cause and effect just a coorelation.

C02 Emissions bleach and kill coral reefs. I am glad the POTUS will be solving this issue soon, although it is sad more people don't support his efforts.

Click on my name for the story.

I am proud to announce WalMart will be having Al Gore speak to their annual conference in an effort to understand Global Warming and other critical environmental issues.

I think it is sad that even when the world's largest retailer, the President of The US, All major US allies, a majority of peer reviewed articles, and even oil company BP are interested in fighting global warming that there are fringe groups that deny the whole thing.

Maybe they should buy our discounted Al Gore DVD when it comes out. It is much better than Nacho Libre. I promise.

Global warming is a fact that can no longer be denied. I find it amusing that some attack Al Gore for being the messenger. A fact is a fact regardless of who say's it. The so-called Greatest Generation was great because it cared about the future and the lives their children and grandchildren would live. We need to follow that example and begin to think long term.

I read the article in the LA Times on DDT that was cited by several bloggers. Again, a distinction needs to be made between the overuse of DDT in agriculture and the limited use of DDT for malaria control. This is something that everyone else around here seems to selectively ignore. The Berkeley study focused on babies and toddlers of farmworkers. These farmworkers were exposed to high concentrations of DDT, concentrations far higher than would be the case in using DDT exclusively for malaria control. I am not and have never advocated for the continued use of DDT in agriculture. But that does not mean that DDT cannot be used effectively for other purposes.

Here is a link the LA times article in question: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ddt5jul05,1,6223584.story

Note that the report stated that the people in the study “had very high exposures, eight times higher than average levels in the U.S. population reported recently by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” But once again, for the purposes of malaria prevention we are not talking about high levels of exposure. The assumption that everyone around here is making is that DDT is harmful to humans at any level of exposure. It is that assumption that I am challenging, and I have yet to hear a persuasive argument or evidence to the contrary, only emotional arguments that are not backed up by the facts.

The LA Times article goes on to state that, “Under a United Nations pact, the Stockholm Convention, DDT is used only for killing mosquitoes that transmit malaria, which claims nearly 1 million children and pregnant women is sub-Saharan Africa annually. President Bush’s year-old Malaria Initiative, the new chief of the World Health Organization’s malaria program and some environmental groups support continued use of DDT as one of the many strategies until safer options are found.”

Let me reiterate the following information provided directly from the LA Times article that many of you have cited:

1) The UN has agreed to use DDT to prevent transmission of malaria
2) The chief of the WHO malaria program supports the continued use of DDT for malaria control
3) Some environmental groups support the use of DDT for malaria control, at least until safer options are found (which do not exist today).
4) One million children and pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa are needlessly dying from malaria annually and DDT is presently the most effective way to stop the spread of malaria

The LA Times article also states that, “In Africa, small amounts are squirted on interior walls, unlike the broadcast spraying of the 1940s and 1950s that contaminated most of the world’s food, soil and wildlife.” Again, this is an important distinction to make. The use of DDT for malaria control is very different than its historical use in massive quantities for agriculture.

By the way, the reason that DDT is the most effective pesticide available for malaria control is because it lingers longer than other pesticides such as malathion, resmethrin and sumithrin. However, concerns over the use of DDT can be mitigated by using it in small quantities exclusively for the purposes of mosquito control. Consider that when the EPA banned DDT approximately 12 million pounds of the insecticide was being used annually. Of that amount, 99% was used for agruculture and only 159,000 pounds for other reasons, including insect control.

As an example of the effective use of DDT, consider that India reduced the number of cases of malaria from approximately 75 million in 1951 to around 50,000 in 1961 by using DDT. Incidences of malaria in India remain low today because of continued use of DDT for malaria control. Ecuador decided in 1993 to increase DDT use and there was a 60 percent decrease in malaria cases. Conversely, the number of new malaria malaria cases has risen 90 percent in Bolivia, Paraguay, and Peru, all of which banned all use of DDT in 1993.

Once again, the information that others here have presented contradicts what many of you have been saying. It is intellectually dishonest to present information from articles and then selectively cherry-pick the facts. The LA Times article that was cited does not refute my arguments but actually reinforces them.

Oddly, it seems that it is the virulant anti-DDT crowd that are the ones who want to ignore what seems to be an "inconvenient truth".

DDT is being used all over the world to control malaria-bearing mosquitoes. It is banned in the US, Canada, the EU and many other developed coutnries. The WHO has banned the use of its funds for the purtchase of DDT unless its use is carefully controlled and exclusively used to prevent malaria transmission. Neither the EU nor the US & Canada will allow any produce imports that have been in contact with DDT...which would not happen unless the compound was used for other than malarial control.

In short, the use of DDT continues on a nation-by-nation basis and the "virulent" anti-DDT crowd really does not exist. Neither does the suggestion of a global "ban".

Bubba or BK:

You're selective quoting is hilarious. I welcome anyone to compare your argument to the LA Times article. You'll find them quite different.

Bubba said: "Once again, the information that others here have presented contradicts what many of you have been saying. It is intellectually dishonest to present information from articles and then selectively cherry-pick the facts. The LA Times article that was cited does not refute my arguments but actually reinforces them."

Seriously, you can't honestly look at what you just said and say you didn't chop up the LA Times evidence to prove your point. Here I'll back up what I'm saying.

Here's your quote for everyone to read and compare.

Bubba or BK said, "Let me reiterate the following information provided directly from the LA Times article that many of you have cited:

1) The UN has agreed to use DDT to prevent transmission of malaria
2) The chief of the WHO malaria program supports the continued use of DDT for malaria control
3) Some environmental groups support the use of DDT for malaria control, at least until safer options are found (which do not exist today).
4) One million children and pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa are needlessly dying from malaria annually and DDT is presently the most effective way to stop the spread of malaria"

Here is the LA Times quote. Feel free to point out what part BK or Bubba decided to delete. Anyone wonder why he deleted it?

LA Times:

"Under a United Nations pact, the Stockholm Convention, DDT is used only for killing mosquitoes that transmit malaria, which claims nearly 1 million children and pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa annually. President Bush's year-old Malaria Initiative, the new chief of the World Health Organization's malaria program and some environmental groups support continued use of DDT as one of many strategies until safer options are found."

Did anyone notice that Bubba chopped out this portion of the quote. I wonder why.

LA Times: "...some environmental groups support continued use of DDT as one of many strategies until safer options are found."

Bubba quote: "3) Some environmental groups support the use of DDT for malaria control, at least until safer options are found (which do not exist today)."

I guess the part about "one of many strategies" didn't fit his argument. He even goes on to claim that no other strategies exist.

Bubba: Can you point out in the LA Times article where the below quote is, that I think you added into the article?

"and DDT is presently the most effective way to stop the spread of malaria[.]"

I can't find where the article says it's the "most effective." Maybe I missed it.

The most effective portion of your comments was the distinction on agricultural overuse because it has some factual bearing on the discussion. I'd be willing to discuss that portion some more.

Samson,

Once again you go into unrelated tangents that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You have cited articles in Wikipedia and the LA Times that in both cases have actually supported my arguments that limited use of DDT is the most effective method of controlling the spread of malaria in third world countries.

But again, you keep ignoring the inconvenient truth and resort to unsubstantiated, emotional arguments such as stating that I should be willing to drink DDT and bathe my children in it. You keep ignoring the annual deaths of two million people and keep trying to change the subject to anything else to avoid addressing the contradictions in your arguments and the fact that even your own sources don't support your statements. You bring up studies that are out of context where DDT is used in massive quantities, not in the limited amounts used for malaria control.

And now you have resorted to dissecting my posts to once again deflect attention from the issues at hand. I gave you exact quotes, but you then start picking apart my summary (which wasn't an exact quote) and start comparing that to quotes from the article. That is pretty dishonest Samson.

From the beginning my only argument has been that DDT is presently the most effective way to control the spread of malaria in third-world countries, and that the use of DDT in limited quantities for this purpose poses very little health risk. And any potential health risks are certainly outweighed by the savings of millions of human lives. My argument is repeatedly supported by the articles that YOU cite. My argument is also supported by hundreds of health officials around the world.

So Samson, why don't you explain to all of us how it is that you know more than the Chief of the WHO malaria program?

BK:

I'll leave it for the rest of the blog universe to make a judgement on whether you chopped up quotes to make your argument as I pointed out.

I also requested feedback from the room if I was wrong on how you made the LA Times article say that DDT is the "most effective use". Not sure how that is intellectually dishonest.

Blogger formerly known as Bubba:

Since you believe that the LA Times article is making your argument, tell me how this quote from that article fits into your argument.

LA Times Article: "Eskenazi and her colleagues caution in their new report that the "benefit of using DDT to control malaria should be balanced carefully against the potnetial risk to children's neurodevelopment. Whenever possible, alternative antimalarial controls should be considered, especially in areas where pregnant women and children may be exposed.""

Now, if the government decided to do manadatory house spraying in homes as your arguing and DDT is known to build up in the food supply and the environment, how can you ensure that your position won't do more harm than good.

Especially in light of the fact that spraying in limited uses only leads to increased spraying due to the fact that malaria-carrying mosquitos usually develop resistance as I've shown before.

Samson: Thanks for a great job of sifting thru the evidence. As far as I'm concerned you've pretty much put to bed this issue about using or not using DDT, which is being used by the Great Bamboozlers to turn a phony debate into a poltiical issue between Libs & Cons, ie. Dems & Repubs. Good work!

Samson,

I don't disagree that the use of DDT needs to be balanced against risks to children's neurodevelopment. But you are still ignoring the fact that the Berkeley study focused on children of farmworkers who were likely exposed to very high levels of DDT as is the case with agricultural use of DDT. The use of DDT for malaria control has a very low level of exposure. Since DDT is still the most effective weapon we have against malaria it only seems prudent to do additional research to determine if it can be used safely for that purpose. That question is not answered by the Berkeley study.

But the central issue here that you and others continue to dance around is the inconvenient truth that 2 million people are dying from malaria in third-world countries every year. While you and other wring your hands over the possible unknown health effects of of low levels of DDT exposure people continue to die needlessly. All the people who opposes the use of DDT seen to conveniently ignore important facts and avoid discussing their ideas for alternatives. That is a copout.

It also ignores the fact that the use of DDT for malaria control is supported by hundreds of health officials around the world and by the Chief of the WHO program for malaria control. Once again you haven't explained why he is wrong and you are right on the DDT issue.

GS, that is the typical DNC soundbite response I would expect from a guy like you. Lots of evasion and propaganda but very little substance.

Sorry BK but Samson NAILED YOU! And I'm not a Dem, despite how dearly you need to make this non-issue into a political one. Further, do you deny anything I stated in my last post or are you simply trying to attach a "label" so that you can more easily argue my subsequent posts?

But again, you IGNORE the salient point that refuses to support your conclusion about the raging "debate" on DDT: there IS no opposition to DDT for use as an anti-malarial and DDT continues to be used all over the world today; this is simply a non-issue you continue to create for yourself and THAT's part of the Great Bamboozling taking place in American politics today...creating devisive issues solely for political gain.

GS, if there is no debate on the use of DDT as an anti-malarial then why do Samson and others continue to attack me for making that simple point? It is not as you say, just read the earlier posts on this thread. But once again this is about dodging the facts and doing the usual propaganda spin to avoid the issue. Tell me Gary, why does the truth make you so uncomfortable?

The Truth makes me uncomfortable when YOU get your hands on it, cause then the Truth's not safe. No one on this board has supported a total ban on DDT as an anti-malarial but you continue to try and marginalize almost everyone on this thread by continuing to claim that they do AND you are doing your best to claim that they're doing it due to Democratic party maneuvering.

OK Gary, let's see who is telling the truth...

Bubba said:
"On the DDT issue, I think that it is worth more scientific research instead of dismissing it outright because of popular opinion against its use. I doubt that the average citizen knows enough about the pros and cons of DDT to render a very informed opinon. But when we have a million people dying every year from malaria we should keep all options on the table, even if some of those options might not be politically correct. If there is a better solution than the use of DDT then even better, but if DDT makes sense in some cases then we should give it consideration. All I'm saying is that we should be open-minded on the subject and do the research so that decisions are based on the facts and not blind assumptions."
Posted by: Bubba Kidd at July 3, 2006 02:52 PM

Gary says:
"there IS no opposition to DDT for use as an anti-malarial and DDT continues to be used all over the world today; this is simply a non-issue you continue to create for yourself"
Posted by: gs at July 11, 2006 11:32 AM

"No one on this board has supported a total ban on DDT as an anti-malarial..."
Posted by: gs at July 11, 2006 01:08 PM

So Gary seems to think this is all in my head. He claims that nobody around here is disagreeing with the use of DDT as an anti-malarial and that I am simply manufacturing this issue. But if that is true then how do you explain the following posts from others on this thread?

Brian Dennert:
“The only other person I have ever heard argue for DDT I believe was Tom Delay.“

“But recently, I kid you not, some so-called conservatives have been arguing to bring DDT back. I thought they were just messing around. But they are deadly serious about it. “

Baldin Eagle:
“Why must they attack the eagles? Polar Bears and Eagles. What is next for the right wing? The Bull Moose? “

Briman:
“Are you a proponent of saving lives or just hawking the sale of DDT?”

“Personally, I would defer to treatment of disease versus use of chemicals.”

Graham:
“Why are some conservatives so worried about the developing world but only when it comes to DDT? I really wish that they'd be identified as "The DDT wing" of the republican party"

Jimmy:
“Bubba like most extremist conservatives is used to drinking the Kool Aide, DDT, whatever his overlords tell him to drink.”

Samson:
“One argument states that we can't protect the environment by banning DDT because people in the developing world will no longer have protection from malaria. This is a false choice.“

“So, let's wager. You and the pro-DDT crowd should eat, drink, bathe, and wash with DDT for ten years…”

“As a pro-DDT advocate why wouldn't you subject you and your family to it daily if you believe it's perfectly fine? “

“Now, if the government decided to do manadatory house spraying in homes as your arguing and DDT is known to build up in the food supply and the environment, how can you ensure that your position won't do more harm than good. “

Gary claims that there is nobody on this board who supports a total ban on DDT and no opposition to the use of DDT for malaria control. That seems to be clearly contradicted by the quotes listed above. If what Gary says is true then I would get would be getting agreement from others, not attacks. And yet we have Gary arguing with a straight face that, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, all of this is just a figment of my imagination. And next I suppose he is also going to claim that grass is pink and the sky is red. Gary, you have become so accustomed to spinning that it seems you have forgotten how to tell the truth, even when it is in front of your face.

Let's ask the posters themselves! Is there anyone who's already posted that is AGAINST the use of DDT as an anti-malarial agent???

Please let us know.

As far as your quotes, BK, not a single one of them suggests that they're against using DDT as an anti-malarial agent in a controlled manner. As Samson has pointed out, you elect ONLY that information that you THINK supports your conslusions and ignore all the rest.

BK!

You dont see anything wrong in ADDING your own thoughts to someone else's words????

Here's what I wrote:

"No one on this board has supported a total ban on DDT as an anti-malarial but you continue to try..."

And here's how you TWISTED my words to make it seem as if I was talking about a total ban, without consideration for DDT's use as an anti-malarial:

"Gary claims that there is nobody on this board who supports a total ban on DDT and no opposition to the use of DDT for malaria control."

By inserting the word "...and..." you've, by accident or by design, created an issue that wasn't there. That's why I am uncomfortable when you attempt to handle the Truth....because you mangle it so badly.

Gary, I can only laugh when I read your responses. But I do agree that we should do a survey. Hopefully we can get a consensus from at least a few people around here so we can move on and stop this circular argument nonsense. But that might require some people to give straight answers, and as we know that isn't exactly a very popular around here. But I guess I'll remain hopefully optimistic.

So the question should be answered in two parts:

1) Do you support a global ban on the use of DDT? (yes or no)

2) Do you support the use of DDT for the purposes of malaria control in countries where insect bourne malaria is widespread and other options are not available or practical? (yes or no)

I'll go first...

1) No
2) Yes

Gary, stop with the ridiculous word-smithing and stay on topic for goodness sake. Next I suspect we're going to be talking about what the definition of "is" is.

The Gypsy Moth was brought into the U.S. in the late 50s and was accidentally released. It devastated large areas of New England forest. To combat the Moth the U.S. began spraying large amounts of DDT. The DDT also devastated the Dragon Fly population, Dragon Flies feed voraciously on mosquitoes. The DDT also built up in the enviroment and created long term problems in the area as it worked its way up the food chain. Most environmental problems are created when man tries to control nature and then throws things out of whack.

Doc, I don't doubt your story. Nobody (conservatives included) is advocating spraying massive amounts of DDT into the environment. What is subject to debate is the use of DDT in very small quantitities to combat the spread of malaria in third world countries, a disease that kills two million human beings every year. Many experts around the world believe that DDT can be effecively used to save millions of human lives while still doing no harm to eagles and dragon flies. That is the issue here.

Hey Gary, I'm still waiting for anyone in this blog to accept the the limited use of DDT use as an anti-malarial. So far it's not looking good for you.

Once again you've twisted my words 180 degrees:

"Let's ask the posters themselves! Is there anyone who's already posted that is AGAINST the use of DDT as an anti-malarial agent???"

I am against the use of DDT. I believe there are other effective pesticides out there that do not cause the long term harm of DDT.

There you go Gary. Or are you now going to accuse Doc of "twisting" your words.

While I have probably presented a great deal of evidence on DDT into the blog I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say we need a global ban yet. I'd support a global phase out combined with creating new markets for alternatives. (Bubba, this might seem like a cop-out considering our little idea war, but I was mainly just disputing that DDT is the most effective by itself and perfectly safe. We hadn't even got to alternative proposals yet.)

I've been reading in Scientific American this month about a concept called Advanced Market Commitments under the BIO Ventures for Global Health. Essentially, Non-governmental organizations aide nations to make deals with pharmaceutical companies to pay a real high price at first for drugs with the guarantees of reduced prices down the road. What is happening with Malaria drugs and HIV drugs for that matter is their is no market to sell these drugs to these countries just like their are no markets to sell other options to fight malaria right now such as chemical nets. The reward of a high price, make companies push their medicines right into very poor countries, which then acts as a tradeoff to jump start a market in a place where it never existed.

Thanks to Bubba, I'm still reading the DDT stuff at the World Health Organization. I willingly admit there is more to this story than what my self or anyone else has said on this blog. I'll have some comments regarding the Stockholm convention soon.

There is a really good paper on people who have HIV and how they contribute to the high rates of malaria cases in sub-saharan Africa. With weakened immune systems these poor people get blasted with malaria. One could argue that you could reduce malaria cases, by reducing and treating HIV/AIDS. Of course, I've brought up AIDS a few times, but no one really wanted to discuss it on any of these blog topics.

Samson, you are right about HIV/AIDS being a contributor to other diseases due to weakened immune systems. Clearly this is a complex problem with no real easy answers. Good comments.

Regardless of your position I think the key is for people to educate themselves on the issues so that we can make informed decisions. Sometimes that requires setting aside assumptions and keeping an open mind. I know we sometimes have our differences Samson, but I will concede that you are much better informed than most.

BK:

Thanks. I appreciate you standing up to my arguments because you make me bring it. GS did the same thing on the New Deal/Roosevelt question. I had to really sharpen my argument.

Would you support a phase out of DDT to insecticide treated nets and other albeit more expensive alternatives if the international community stepped up to the plate and put some real cash into this problem? Also, a massive new commitment to anti-malarial drugs and anti-HIV drugs would be part of this effort.

I concede that the current choice given to the developing world is a real problem. They do not have the money for alternatives I described above, so a poorer and environmentally unfriendly pesticide is the only option left on the table. A global ban wouldn't make sense unless the developed world was prepared to put more money and controls into this problem.

If there were real, practical alternatives to DDT I would support it. As you say, that requires a commitment by the international community to make the investment (and by international I mean more than just the USA). Sadly, that is not the case at this time and because of that people continue to suffer and die needlessly.

BK:

When you get a minute, check ou8t the WHO guide on "frequently asked questions on DDT use for disease vector control"

I'm not going to quote it, but will just say while in theory indoor residual spraying when properly implemented may be an effective vector control with other means as part of a comprehensive strategy, my biggest fear is overuse.

The major assumption we are operating under here is that in these small African countries, what science says is the proper use is not being followed because total control in implementation of the strategy is not being controlled by the people setting the rules.

This could indicate that indoor residual spraying could be misimplemented and we wouldn't even know it.

Also: Check out the "Center for Media and Democracy" at www.prwatch.org. It really takes the bark off which groups support DDT use and how they have muddled the scientific debate.

For instance, the American Council on Science and Health is a major corporate PR player in favor of DDT even getting a letter to the editor into the New York Times in favor of DDT this past week. According to this website USA today quotes this group as the number one most quoted science group in the news, yet they do no primary research and are essentially a front group to make scientific claims on behalf of corporate donors.

Please feel free to go to the website and take a look at the DDT debate there.

There's also an interesting book on the website called "Toxic Sludge Is Good For You" which discusses the PR influence over science or should we call it pseudoscience and PR. Take a look for yourself and discuss if you think DDT is just another PR effort.

GS: I'd like your thoughts as well on this.

Why does the man hate them so much? Frank h8's eagles! Sad!

thyroid therapy cancer cancer thyroid medulary

What? Nacho libre was funny!