Among the less positive developments, we can expect a number of attacks on environmentalism as supposedly helping to spread malaria and even being guilty of genocide because millions supposedly died when DDT was banned. It has long been a right wing meme. I have even heard people associated with the Competitive Enterprise Institute accuse Carson herself of being guilty of genocide, although she had died before any DDT was banned. They have a web site up arguing that her infuence led to millions of deaths.
As usually is the case with people attacking environmentalists, the lies and alsehoods outweigh the truth. the truth is very different and more interesting.
While pretty useless on issues of spirituality, the excellent site science blogs has a good a post by Tim Lambert discussing the real facts concerning DDT and malaria. Lambert discusses and links to an excellent piece in Salon by Kirsten Weir that goes into greater depth on the truth behind DDT and malaria.
As a matter of fact, Carson did not oppose all use of DDT. She wrote ""No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored," she wrote. "It is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never be used. I contend ... that we have allowed these chemicals to be used with little or no advance investigation of their effect on soil, water, wildlife, and man himself."' Further, Weir's article points out that "In fact, the decline in DDT use coincided with a drop in malaria rates."
Jim Easter at Someareboojums provides an interesting post on DDT and malaria, concluding:
"The 1972 DDT ban did nothing to restrict the chemical's use against malaria, but had the effect of eliminating the single most intense source of selection pressure for insecticide resistance in mosquitos. As the rest of the world followed suit in restricting agricultural use of DDT, the spread of resistance was slowed dramatically or stopped.
"By this single action, William Ruckelshaus -- and, credit where it's due, Rachel Carson -- may well have saved millions of lives."
Why is it the truth is so often the opposite of what the critics of environmentalism say?
As a matter of fact, Carson did not oppose all use of DDT. She wrote ""No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored," she wrote. "It is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never be used. I contend ... that we have allowed these chemicals to be used with little or no advance investigation of their effect on soil, water, wildlife, and man himself."' Further, Weir's article points out that "In fact, the decline in DDT use coincided with a drop in malaria rates."
Jim Easter at Someareboojums provides an interesting post on DDT and malaria, concluding:
"The 1972 DDT ban did nothing to restrict the chemical's use against malaria, but had the effect of eliminating the single most intense source of selection pressure for insecticide resistance in mosquitos. As the rest of the world followed suit in restricting agricultural use of DDT, the spread of resistance was slowed dramatically or stopped.
"By this single action, William Ruckelshaus -- and, credit where it's due, Rachel Carson -- may well have saved millions of lives."
Why is it the truth is so often the opposite of what the critics of environmentalism say?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Well, you are too clever by one half on two counts; firstly, although Carson may have written what she did about not completely banning Chemicals, it is somewhat like me giving a speach in which I wip up racial hatred and then claim that "I did not want or tell anyone to kill those Ni---s" While I do not hold her personally resopnsible in a criminal sense, she is responsible in initiating a chain of events which led to the deaths of more than Stalin, Mao and Hitler combined. Also, I have read several studies in which gross amounts of DDT was fed to chickens and eggs shell densities were constant. ALso, aledgedly affected bird population were in decline in the 30's according to Audobon and royal society for the preservatin of birds...several years before DDT was even envented much less , widely used. SO I gues you are saying so nafarious is this chemical that it can affect things in both directions of the time scale :-) Cheers, Terry
Well, you are too clever by one half on two counts; firstly, although Carson may have written what she did about not completely banning Chemicals, it is somewhat like me giving a speach in which I wip up racial hatred and then claim that "I did not want or tell anyone to kill those Ni---s" While I do not hold her personally resopnsible in a criminal sense, she is responsible in initiating a chain of events which led to the deaths of more than Stalin, Mao and Hitler combined. Also, I have read several studies in which gross amounts of DDT was fed to chickens and eggs shell densities were constant. ALso, aledgedly affected bird population were in decline in the 30's according to Audobon and royal society for the preservatin of birds...several years before DDT was even envented much less , widely used. SO I gues you are saying so nafarious is this chemical that it can affect things in both directions of the time scale :-) Cheers, Terry
Wow the level of ignorance that exists about DDT is literally mind boggling. The green movement doesn't give a shit about people, all they care about is their cause. That billions of people (mostly babies) have died as a direct result of the ban on DDT is of no concern to these people. And don't confuse them with fact after fact which all point to the safety of DDT. My own father who was in WWII used to dust himself from head to toe with DDT in the 1940's. He just died last year at the ripe old age of 90. As a child I used to run through the thick white clouds of DDT as the trucks rolled through my neighborhood spraying. I'm still chugging along at 50.
The fact is that the organophosphates that we now use in place of DDT are far more harmful to the environment then DDT ever was. The very agency that banned DDT in the US in 1971 concluded after 7 months of testimony from hundreds of scientist that there was no evidence to show that DDT was harmful to humans, birds, or the environment. People need to wake up and realize that the green movement is out to kill as many people as they can.
Have you actually read the article? You haven't read the post apparently. Take the time some time to study what the words mean? Some of us use them to communicate meaning rather than bellows.
Seems not.
Like the imbecile above you who could not get his name right, actually thinking in patterns other than "THIS GOOD THAT BAD" seems beyond your level of skill. I am getting very tired, over tired, of conservatives and their supporters consistently lying about and distorting every position they disagree with.
Given your level of incompetence at reading what was posted, why o why should I take he time to check out your unlinked reference to DDT being off the hook?
I won't.
VGery good blog.. i think you should network with the moms in the bizymoms Carson community & share you ideas & thought on this topic
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.