World To Africa: 'Best Of Luck' (Again)
	found on Washington Monthly written by chiaboy, edited by George (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Fri 7 Mar 1:02pm
		"As usual, the people who bear the brunt of junk science are the weakest among us," chiaboy writes. "For instance, the junk science around genetically modified food has enabled a movement to deny much-needed food to 800 million people around the world. "Now, a movement is gaining ground to reclaim DDT from the trashbin of bad science in an effort to save hundreds of millions of lives in malaria infested regions. South Africa recently reintroduced DDT, and others are lobbying the rest of Africa and the world to take heed. But the old ways die hard. Uganda is a nation doing well by African standards -- however, as Alexander Gourevitch explains: The mosquito-borne illness costs Uganda more than $347 million a year. Today, up to 40 percent of the country's outpatient care goes to people thus infected. Total infections are so numerous that the government doesn't even try to track them, but last year, 80,000 people died of the disease, half of them children under the age of five. "Uganda planned on using DDT, and resistance began almost immediately, most of it based upon decades-old studies that have long since been refuted.

	"Professor Deepak Lal explains who the anti-DDT forces are and the basis for their misguided and lethal miscalculations: So why did DDT fall out of disfavor despite its demonstrated merits? It was Rachel Carson in 1962 who started the DDT scare with her claim that its use had devastating effects on bird life, particularly on those birds higher up the food chain. It was also claimed that it caused hepatitis in humans. Numerous scientific studies showed these fears to be baseless. It was shown to be safe to humans, causing death only if eaten like pancakes.... Once again, the environmentalists are willing to ban DDT because they are willing to sacrifice human lives for those of birds. "This underlying misanthropy also dismisses much of the science that not only questions, but outright refutes the impact DDT has on birds. With hundreds of millions of lives in the balance, you would believe that the politics might favor the reintroduction of DDT. But if history is any guide, then it's clear science and politics can be a toxic combination.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 49 commentsbest: 8 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Junkscience is right   by JC65       at Fri 7 Mar 1:34pm score of 3.5 astute     I don't know whether it's funny or sad that a writeup, based largely on the paid propaganda of Steve Milloy would actually make it out of the subqueue. Mr Milloy's expertese (or lack thereof) in any subject concerning science has been so thuroughly debunked that anyone linking to his site proves themselves uninterested in science and very interested in PR. There is an extensive dismanteling of Mr Milloy here. This write-up makes me wonder if chiaboy is on Monsanto's payroll s they've been known to create 'fake people' to polute the world of internet discourse on subjects that affect them. (And chiaboy, if you're not on Monsanto's payroll, maybe you should send this writeup in attached to your resume as an example of your work.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Re: Junkscience is right   by stankow       at Fri 7 Mar 2:07pm score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 1     I don't know whether it's funny or sad that a writeup, based largely on the paid propaganda of Steve Milloy would actually make it out of the subqueue. Well, here's an idea -- comment on it with more than a flip "looks like monsanto has sent a check to the PR machine again". Maybe, perhaps, by including that link you just posted? We have the sub queue up so you can improve the story. I'm as guilty of snarking in the queue as anyone, but then I don't turn around and bitch about how a story is fundamentally wrong after I blew my chance at actually improving it in favor of an insult.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  you're right   by JC65       at Fri 7 Mar 2:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     I should have linked the article about Monsanto actively targeting web discussions with their fake science in the subqueue. So I'm partly to blame, but that doesn't make it any less sad.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Junkscience is right   by hermenewt       at Fri 7 Mar 2:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Mr Milloy's expertese (or lack thereof) in any subject concerning science has been so thuroughly debunked that anyone linking to his site proves themselves uninterested in science and very interested in PR. C'mon now, as Dr. Science would say, he has a Master's degree...in Science! I place a lot more credence in Cecil Adams than anything that comes bouncing through the JunkScience.com/Fox News echo chamber. Some other links for those interested in background on this dubious "expert": A link. A link. different(42), human(37), language(37), always(33), every(32), article(32)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Junkscience is right   by Anonymous Idiot       at Fri 7 Mar 3:03pm score of 1 compelling   in reply to comment 9     regardless of who he works for his science is sound. personal attacks against those who are afraid of the truth and resent the scientific method. So he works for some unsavoury companies, but now is aligned with the Cato Institute, the main issue is he right? (or more to the point are his methods sound?) Ugly personal attacks don't get us any closer to the truth.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Junkscience is right   by Ghiri       at Fri 7 Mar 3:54pm score of 3 helpful   in reply to comment 9     Here is a link that I found over at slashdot.com about how to determine if a scientific report/finding is bogus. A nice chance to compare the "science" at JunkScience.com to the real thing.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Junkscience is right   by chiaboy       at Fri 7 Mar 5:26pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 15     actually, what makes more sense (and is on topic to boot) is to apply those principles to the findings that DDT is harmful to humans. Talk about running after a Red Herring, for those of you who have problems with Junkscience, pretend that link doesn't exist, the body of evidence is what this should be about, not a single man. Its actually a really bogus way to "compare" the science at Junk Science since those methods are pretty close to the one's that Milloy employs as well. As a matter of fact, Parker (who's article you refer to) is a fan of Milloy's methods Tell you what, I am willing to stipulate that Milloy is Satan and want's to get kids hooked on children and Foxnews is broadcast directly from the 7th gate of Hell, if you are willing to talk about the millions of people at risk in Africa. (Not quite as cheery sport as character assisination, but some of us think its worthy of attention nonetheless) Can a puma challenge a lion for king of the jungle?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Junkscience is right   by ignoblus       at Sat 8 Mar 2:08am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 15     In the field of toxicology and public health, however, those rules are meaningless. I'm currently reading No Safe Place for class. In the case of Woburn, Mass. each of the seven rules in that article were violated to varying degrees. Ultimately, the "lay epidemiology" of the citizens of Woburn was confirmed. Now, those are good rules for bench science, but not for all scientific endeavors. It never was that simple, and it still isn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Junkscience is right   by hermenewt       at Sun 9 Mar 12:11pm score of 1   in reply to comment 18     Tell you what, I am willing to stipulate that Milloy is Satan [...] if you are willing to talk about the millions of people at risk in Africa. (Not quite as cheery sport as character assisination, but some of us think its worthy of attention nonetheless) I can appreciate your frustration with those (including myself) who assail the credibility of some of your sources. This is why I suggested in the SubQ that the post would be more persuasive if the Milloy link were simply dropped. The problem is that "character assasination" is built right into the writeup itself, so it's no surprise that it resurfaces in the discussion. The polemical, derisive tone of the writeup and some of the links makes it hard for serious discussion to ensue. You reap what you sow. These are difficult scientific and public policy issues to sort out, especially for us laypeople. We depend on the credibility and credentials of experts to form opinions. Conversely, when said credibility is doubtful, it is hard to be persuaded by the arguments, no matter how sound. When the supposed folly of DDT bans is blamed on "misanthropy" (as the writeup does), or environmentalism as a whole is tarred as "eco-fundamentalism" and "cultural imperialism" (as the Lal essay does), it is hard to take the rest of the argument seriously. For myself, I'm undecided about this. I'm quite prepared to accept that the dangers of DDT have been overestimated. But i'd attribute that to the fallibility of science, the law of unintended consequences, even "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", etc., before I'd start flailing around trollish accusations about racism, misanthropy, imperialism, etc. different(42), human(37), language(37), always(33), every(32), article(32)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: Junkscience is right   by chiaboy       at Sun 9 Mar 1:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     ...flailing around trollish accusations about racism, misanthropy, imperialism, etc I stand by the assertion that if this had afflicted other parts of the world a more serious examination of all options would be considered. I doubt that racism explains all of the action (or inaction) in regards to our policies towards Africa (and for that matter, I don't believe I mentioned racism but do acknowledge that it more than likely is a related issue) I do believe that its misanthropic to glibly pit the well being of half-a billion humans vs. some questionable scientific studies that claimed birds may be harmed from a DDT usage pattern that isn't even being considered today. And as you mentioned, the imperialism quote is from one of the authors, so I can't speak for him. If these views are "trollish" than I am still proud to hold them. Hundreds of millions of lives are at stake, that isn't a red herring, that is the scope of what we are discussing. Human beings. Can a puma challenge a lion for king of the jungle?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Junkscience is right   by chiaboy       at Fri 7 Mar 2:52pm score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 1     OK, If Milloy works for Big Tobacco, and I work for Monsanto, who does Cecil of the Straight Dope work for? or Dr. Roger Bate? or Depak Lal? or Alexander Gourevitch? All authors of articles linked above. Ad-hom arguments aside, the evidence seems to be clearly stacking up that the benefits of using DDT clearly outweigh the potential hazards. And since the cost/benefit analysis is mostly based on millions of lives at risk, this deserves a critical, serious, second look. For the record, I don't work for Monsanto, I sell software in the Bay Area. However, the Silicon Valley economy being what it is if any Monsanto execs out there want to hire me for major dollars, I'd consider it. Perhaps me and MAYORBOB can go on a lecture tour debating Eagle's fans vs. Raider's fans, all the while secretly spraying the packed lecture halls with DDT. Can a puma challenge a lion for king of the jungle?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Well, Deepak Lal is a professor of Economics   by JC65       at Fri 7 Mar 3:03pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 10     UCLA Faculty Fields: Economics Development; and International Economics. Research: Political economy of poverty, equity and growth; culture and development; economic liberalization. Now, I'm a social-sciences guy myself, so I'm not going to say that Economics isn't a science, but I am going to say that a professor of economics might not be my first choice of sources when citing a study of the effects of some chemical on birds.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Alexander Gourevitch is a 'writing fellow'   by JC65       at Fri 7 Mar 3:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     At the American Prospect. I don't know how many Alexander Gourevitchs there are, but there's another one who's a Professor of Engineering at UW Madison apparently associated with the Applied Superconductivity Center. And as far as I can tell using Google, Cecil Adams is a comedian.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Junkscience is right   by MAYORBOB       at Fri 7 Mar 6:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     "Perhaps me and MAYORBOB can go on a lecture tour debating Eagle's fans vs. Raider's fans, all the while secretly spraying the packed lecture halls with DDT." I don't think that would work. However, had I known about this research, say back in January, maybe we could have put some DDT in the Buccaneers Gator Ade cooler. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Junkscience is right   by madison       at Sat 8 Mar 1:45pm score of 2.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 10     I don't know enough about the research in question, but I have to say I'm skeptical of the DDT revisionists. Rachel Carson didn't have any PR machine behind her, just some research that raised questions. The President's Advisory Committee on Science reviewed the questions and came to the consensus that DDT was too dangerous to keep using. Steve Milloy's message on the other hand seems like it wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the backing of a PR machine, and in fact it seems like the machine came before the message. (BTW here's another example of Milloy's work and a rebuttal.) The misanthropy charge is ridiculous. DDT fans would like to believe that they understand the dynamics of the ecosystem perfectly, and since by their reckoning nothing could possibly go wrong, anyone who disagrees with them is misanthropic. The fact is eventually insects develop resistance to pesticides. Meanwhile if bird populations are falling due to DDT buildup, then the natural predators of insects could decline making a population explosion of resistant insects possible with the result being that the problem becomes even worse. DDT isn't even the only way to combat malaria. DDT may be necessary to some extent to fight malaria, but it would be foolish to pretend that it is not toxic.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Junkscience is right   by Avumede       at Sun 9 Mar 10:05am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     But since you quote Milloy, and seem to be taking his arguments to heart, we reserve the right to be skeptical. I trust Cecil Adams, though, and his article was considerable less gung-ho about DDT than articles about the likes of Milloy. In fact, Cecil Adams did not seem to think that Rachel Carson's work was "junk science". So you are really misrepresenting the whole debate. The real debate is more like "We know DDT is harmful, but would it be worth using anyway if we can stop the malaria epidemic?"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Junkscience is right   by eidilon       at Sat 8 Mar 1:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     I don't see a single thing if your dismantling of Mr. Milloy that suggests the linked to analysis of DDT is incorrect. Care to try again with a more relevant link?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Not so junk in this case...   by bashibazouk       at Sat 8 Mar 4:04pm score of 1 informative   in reply to comment 1     According to my entomology professor (name escapes me, it was many years ago, SJSU) DDT is fine as a short term application to rid an area of pests (malaria mosquitoes, med flies, etc...). It has very few long term effects for applications of less than 2 weeks in a single area but if you use it to drench crops year after year it definitely has really bad long term effects. We can thank DDT for getting rid of malaria in the southern swamps. Banning it from crop use was a good idea but it was taken too far and banned in it's entirety.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  On a broader subject   by Mad Professor       at Fri 7 Mar 1:35pm score of 1.5 interesting     Maybe humanity should accept that certain regions of the world will always be conducive to negative quality-of-life factors. Jungles seem to be, on the whole, nasty places to live. Now we can spray DDT on the whole middle of Africa until the Congo is choked with dead birds, or humanity can choose to accept what is and repopulate elsewhere. Now sure, this global repopulation would be expensive and complicated and would require a decline in total human population for population density, but the long run situation seems to be a more efficient use of resources as newer human inhabitation leaves a smaller footprint and exists in a more comfortable environ for the human temperament. I suppose this is all from the perspective of a massive shift in attitude and intention on the part of humanity, but maybe it's time to begin thinking about this sort of thing. I just thought I'd throw in some sci-fi futurist-blathering.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: On a broader subject   by kilroy       at Fri 7 Mar 2:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Repopulate elsewhere? Didn't we try that with the Cherokee? Because it didn't seem to work well. You think people will still be using napkins in the year 2000? Or is this mouth vacuum thing for real?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: On a broader subject   by Mad Professor       at Fri 7 Mar 4:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 7     I'm talking about the whole of humanity repopulating to areas of the world where we don't have to waste energy and resources on... climate control (both indoor and out), ecological control (erradicating mosquitoes from Africa?), and any other activity that is nearly impossible and contrary to the natural environment. Out here in the American South West there is a movement towards low-impact policies for water. The realization that having a Kentucky Bluegrass lawn out here is both impossible and wasteful is starting to enter the mainstream of public opinion. People are starting to xeriscape and expand the use of indigent species to reduce water consumption for a formerly wasteful use of resources. This is not to say that South Western sod lawns are of a comparable seriousness to most of the problems of Africa, but the concept is the same. It's like trying to make the Sahara into the bread-basket of Africa, what's the use?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: On a broader subject   by Nameless Cynic       at Sat 8 Mar 1:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     So what you're saying is, the Rev. Sam Kinnison was right? "See this? It's SAND! Things don't grow here! We have deserts in America. We just don't live there! You have to be careful saying things like that. Africa is a touchy subject: some people pull out the race card fast enough to cause paper-cuts. And yeah, some places are harder to live than others. Like, well, New Mexico or Arizona. Incidentally, hello from Albuquerque. I'll be visiting my mother-in-law in Phoenix soon, and I'll give her your best. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: On a broader subject   by Ernest Scribbler       at Sat 8 Mar 12:18am score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 2     Maybe humanity should accept that certain regions of the world will always be conducive to negative quality-of-life factors though I assume this remark is tongue in cheek, it's worth noting for this thread that the countries in subsaharan Africa (where malaria is the biggest problem) have some of the highest rates of population growth on the planet. It's also worth noting that there is an alternative to DDT, malathion, which is less harmful, but more expensive . It may seem unacceptable to those with an interest in foreign aid, but perhaps malathion could be donated as an alternative to DDT.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: On a broader subject   by choodak       at Sun 9 Mar 8:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     This already occurs in nature without human intervention. Places that were not meant to sustain human life are equipped with things that make humans not live there. Malaria is one and so is Ebola and so was Aids. Those who resist nature and try to go against her usually don't make it. DDT or not the planet will get her way. Cruel but true.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Let me get this straight   by JC65       at Sun 9 Mar 4:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 40     You're claiming that Africa, the continent on which our pre-human ancestors probably first decended from the trees and walked on the ground, is not meant to sustain human life?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: On a broader subject   by larryedel       at Sun 9 Mar 10:56am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     maybe it's time to begin thinking about this sort of thing No, probably not yet. As far as I'm concerned, it's a pretty unfeasible idea right now, and one I'd give very little consideration towards. I don't know what would make mass community relocation work, and I can't imagine when the conditions would exist for it to work. Today, it would be viewed as a form of racism, at the very least, and that would probably turn out to be accurate.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Well, which one's it going to be?   by trouscaillon       at Fri 7 Mar 1:37pm score of 4.5 informative     Once again, the environmentalists are willing to ban DDT because they are willing to sacrifice human lives for those of birds. Numerous scientific studies showed these fears to be baseless. Does DDT affect birds and humans, or doesn't it? In the first quote it looks like a yes, in the second a no. (and these are from the same paragraph!) He's vacillating here already, and the whole method of attack looks suspicious to me. I'd say I have an environmentalist streak, but if the science clearly shows that DDT has no effect on animals and humans, I'd approve of its use. Nobody wants to protect bad science, and if DDT is safe noone gains from banning its use. This need to attack environmentalists indicates to me that maybe the science isn't as clear cut as he'd like it to be. It was shown to be safe to humans, causing death only if eaten like pancakes... The whole idea behind a lot of the fear of pesticides is that they build up in your system, and can eventually reach the levels described here. This link details how DDT builds up within an animal's fatty tissues. The half-life is eight years, so it takes quite a while for any consumed DDT to be purged from the animals system. If we keep this in mind its not too hard to imagine the pesticide building up in a manner equivalent to the "eating of pancakes" over ten or fifteen years. Tests that only measure a pesticide's effects in direct doses are really quite useless nowadays; what really needs to be studied is how the pesticides effect us if we are continually exposed to them over a number of years. Cancer rates have been skyrocketing and infertility has decreased in both sexes over the last fifty years or so. Both of these can be linked to our pesticide and insecticide soaked world, and it's necessary to keep this in mind when reading these sorts of things.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  who are you trying to sell?   by burntfriedman       at Fri 7 Mar 2:25pm score of 1.5 funny     the same article that claims to be saying that ddt is alright also notes the usage of ddt by the nazis in the concentration camps as sanitary. If I remember the nazi camps correctly, that's a scary word to use around survivors. "...the film clips of Nazi concentration camp survivors - it's difficult to imagine people in more compromised health state - who were drenched upon liberation with the pesticide DDT to kill disease-bearing lice. Not only did DDT save many survivors' lives, but there are no reports in the scientific literature of adverse health effects from the soaking." If you want me to believe this, Monsanto better start writing me a cheque fast...I'm starting to think that eternal vigilance was sold.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: who are you trying to sell?   by Ozymandias       at Fri 7 Mar 4:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     From your quote it does not sound as if the Nazis were using DDT. "upon liberation" makes it sound like it was used by the allied forces to help clean them up.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: who are you trying to sell?   by burntfriedman       at Sat 8 Mar 4:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     rather, my point is you don't prop up holocaust liberation to try and sell the fact that ddt is supposedly good for you. The fact of the matter is that the incident is not an accurate or precise study, its just a record of use.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: who are you trying to sell?   by RebolMan       at Sat 8 Mar 8:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     When my mother was a young girl (the 40s) she recalls that the kids used to run behind the DDT trucks that drove around the neighborhood (here in the USA). So to imply that Nazi's were doing something terrible by using DDT is specious. Everybody was spraying it, it seemed a safe effective way to kill off all sorts of bugs.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Bullshit! Bullshit in the last paragraph!   by kilroy       at Fri 7 Mar 2:46pm score of 1.5 informative     This underlying misanthropy also dismisses much of the science that not only questions, but outright refutes the impact DDT has on birds. As stated here, Carson cited two articles by DeWitt, with the first study (using high levels of DDT) resoundingly supporting Carson's claims. The second study, the one cited (in an extremely misleading and dishonest way), used much lower levels of DDT and did indeed show no negative effects on birds. But as was stated before, DDT lasts a long time and tends to concentrate up the food stream. You think people will still be using napkins in the year 2000? Or is this mouth vacuum thing for real?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  Re: Bullshit! Bullshit in the last paragraph!   by gerrymander       at Fri 7 Mar 6:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     Your link doesn't work. Would you please re-post it?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Oh, fuck.   by kilroy       at Fri 7 Mar 9:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Here it is again. Damn it all. You think people will still be using napkins in the year 2000? Or is this mouth vacuum thing for real?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Oh, fuck.   by chiaboy       at Sat 8 Mar 8:12am score of 1   in reply to comment 22     the results of the second study found that "the difference approached significance" A single, unverified, and inconclusive study that is based on outdated usage expectations of DDT isn't much to base a decision on that endangers hundreds of millions of human lives. A study demonstrating "significance" and comeing "close" to that threshold is actually pretty far apart. But since we are talking about millions of lives in Africa the scant evidence of egg weight (potential) discrepency clearly is enough to maintain the ban. After all, these are African lives, not American lives, they couldn't possibly we worth as much. Can a puma challenge a lion for king of the jungle?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Are you fucking kidding me?   by kilroy       at Sat 8 Mar 11:35am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 26     "Significance" is a scientific term which has to do with the size of the variation compared to the size of the sample group, and probably means that DeWitt's sample groups were not big enough... But come on, this is getting stupid. DDT at high levels limits calcium deposition in eggshells, hell, even the exact chemical mechanism is known. Not to mention the fact that DeWitt (even in the study using higher doses) wasn't working with nearly the levels that raptor species would often build up. Very few studies exist here, because it's an expensive study to perform, and because the issue is (deal with it) settled. Even if the scientific studies mean nothing to you, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming... ask any bird researcher (my girlfriend works with with some) who has been around long enough and they'll tell you that, invariably, when they found hatches of raptor eggs which were all crushed very near to hatching, they'd have high levels of DDT, much higher than the average levels in the materials left behind in eggs that successfully hatched. Now I'm not denying that there is a very powerful argument that DDT is still needed in tropical areas to control malaria (I'd even agree with that argument, hands down). But even then, there are human health effects from DDT. With probably many more still unknown, because very little research on DDT has been done for the last fifty years. So it'll be a trade-off, no matter what choice is made. But way to throw out that racism charge, fuckhead. The fact that I'm pointing out that you're wrong about something is clearly evidence of my irrational hatred of niggers. You think people will still be using napkins in the year 2000? Or is this mouth vacuum thing for real?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Oh, fuck.   by Ernest Scribbler       at Sat 8 Mar 8:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 26     the results of the second study found that "the difference approached significance" One way of addressing the common problem of having lots of studies with borderline, non-significant results is meta-analysis, a statistical tool that pools data across studies to determine the overall importance of the factor in question, without having to resort to the somewhat simplistic conclusion "oh, it's not important... those are only trends due to random variation". Here is one that has some relevance to this thread. Bold marks mine. Organochlorine compounds in subtropical and tropical organisms: a meta-analysis       Snedaker SC, Araujo RJ, Capin AA, Hearon MD, Ofengand EA       TOXICOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL HEALTH       15 (1-2): 214-230 JAN-MAR 1999 Abstract: A search of the published and unpublished literature was conducted for analytical data on organochlorine compounds in tissues of subtropical and tropical marine organisms. The search was limited to reports of analyte concentrations in whole body or muscle tissue that were minimally determined by chromatographic procedures. A total of 1564 sample analyses consisting of 4431 analyte determinations were obtained for hard and soft corals, sponges, benthic seagrasses and algae, gastropods, fish and shellfish, and 'market-basket' (processed seafood) samples. For comparative purposes, data that were reported on a wet- or fresh-weight basis were uniformly converted to a common dry-weight estimate by dividing the wet-weight values by five (i.e., 80% water, 20% dry-weight tissue). Due to the large variation in analytical procedures, target analytes, chromatographic interpretations, and reporting units, the data were pooled by organochlorine-compound class (i.e., chlorinated cyclodienes, chlorinated aliphatics, chlorinated phenols, and chlorinated terpenes, hexachlorocyclohexanes, and polychlorinated biphenyls). A meta-analysis of the resulting database yielded a mean analyte concentration of 1594 +/- 8768 ng g(-1) (dry weight), a median concentration of 23 ng g(-1) (dry weight), and a mean of 2.89 analytes per sample; the corresponding mean tissue burden is 4608 ng g(-1) (dry weight), the equivalent of 922 ng g(-1) on a wet-weight basis. It was also found that the chlorinated aliphatics (i.e., DDT and its metabolites) constituted 40.15% of the reported analyte determinations.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Are you fucking kidding me?   by chiaboy       at Sun 9 Mar 12:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     But way to throw out that racism charge, fuckhead. The fact that I'm pointing out that you're wrong about something is clearly evidence of my irrational hatred of niggers this isn't about your issues with black folks, it about the threat the malaria poses to Africa and much of the world similarly at risk. unless you are a high-ranking official tasked with either creating or enforcing policy on a broad level, your racism (real or disingenuously created to offer up a lame "point")really is besides the matter. Your biases aren't the issue, only symptomatic of them. But since we are talking about the implicit racism and patronizing perspective of those who are unwilling to view alternate perspectives I would like to pick up on one of your points. You mention the costs and challenges associated with conducting further studies. You mention that it is an "expensive study to perform" somehow I bet we'd find the cash/time/interest to conduct these studies of millions of Americans were dying of malaria. We'd chose to carefully scrutinize the methods employed and more than likely apply a cost/benefit analysis based upon reason rather than simplistic politically motivated platitudes. "Malaria currently infects 300 to 500 million people annually, mostly in Africa, and causes as many as 2.7 million deaths. Alternative methods of mosquito control cost more and are less effective. Some 400 scientists and doctors have signed a petition opposing the inclusion of DDT among the 12 persistent organic pollutants (POPs) to be banned under a United Nations treaty now up for ratification"-the Straight Dope Can a puma challenge a lion for king of the jungle?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Are you fucking kidding me?   by scareduck       at Sun 9 Mar 10:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     One of my favorite Heisenberg moments came during research done to prove or disprove DDT's effects on the eggshell thickness of eagle eggs. Suddenly, the eggs stopped being fecund, and the eagle population dropped rather precipitously. Unspoken was, well, what do you suppose the effects of all those grad students in aeries was to all those eggs? We're smarter individually. -- Larry Niven   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: Are you fucking kidding me?   by kilroy       at Sun 9 Mar 10:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 38     Just so you know, obtuse sarcasm is that much funnier when the people you aim it at don't catch it. You think people will still be using napkins in the year 2000? Or is this mouth vacuum thing for real?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  i want to eat african babies!   by natophonic       at Sun 9 Mar 10:46am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 26     After all, these are African lives, not American lives, they couldn't possibly we worth as much. you've been beating this drum pretty loudly throughout, from the write-up, well into the discussion. there are no grounds to assume that people who don't want DDT sprayed in africa are somehow misanthropic. people here appreciate that the pelicans weren't extinguished by DDT, that our air is much more breathable than it used to be, and that our rivers don't catch on fire anymore. these same people find it pretty disgusting that would-be polluters are searching the world for other markets unprotected by the regulations we have in the US. i know you already knew that, and that your 'i weep for the africans' is probably a rhetorical ruse, but i thought i'd just point it out. What we do is never understood but merely praised or blamed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Ehhh???   by eduardo       at Fri 7 Mar 9:31pm score of 1.5 funny     DDT totally rocks! J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  DDT Short term solutions, long term goals.   by TreeHouseHero       at Sat 8 Mar 5:18pm score of 1.5 brilliant     Regardless if you believe that DDT has negative effects on humans or animals, we need to look at what are our temporary, short term and long term solutions for surviving on this planet are. Many of the posts in this thread point the finger at Monsanto. It is easy to demonize Monsanto and go on eating our GMO cornflakes in sanctimonious bliss. It is harder to face reality. I have proposed some methods below that allow for a safer use of pesticides while also addressing economic realities by working with, not against, Monsanto. Instead of flooding ponds with DDT, we could use the artificial sweetener Aspartame, otherwise known as Nutrasweet. Africa could litter mosquito infested ponds with tiny fish-safe/mosquito-sized recyclable cans of diet Coke and or diet Pepsi. Instead of blood, the tiny winged parasites would drink their favorite sodas, all the while unknowingly ingesting the nutrasweet. Over time the insects would begin to suffer the acute affects of aspartame poisoning, seizures etc, and eventually become unable to infect vulnerable africans with malaria. A more permanant solution would be to dump PCB's into creeks and ponds. All the fish would die, and the birds would simply fly somewhere else to find food and breed. Many of you might say "great, but what about all the African cancer patients, still births, and flipper baby's resulting from PCB poisoning?" The economic plus is that getting poisoned by a Monsanto product can be very lucrative, more so than dropping dead from malaria. Has anybody ever filed a class-action suit against a mosquito? Another solution would be to let the mosquito kill several hundred thousand Africans. We could use the good bodies for meat. Instead of calling it soylent green, we could call it soylent black. Let's face it, world hunger is out of control, malaria is killing millions, is god telling us something? The world would be fed without having to resort to the dangers of GMOs. I know that some of you might view this as being too callous, racist or barbaric to gain widespread approval, but we don't need to tell anybody. Let's work together and straighten this shit out!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  Patents   by Patrik       at Sat 8 Mar 10:04pm score of 1.5 informative     I remember reading an article several years ago about the DDT scare. I don't have any sources to back it up but if I remember correctly, the article itself was nothing more then speculation about the real reason why the world turned against DDT. Before DDT was banned, it was a patented pesticide. The problem was, after almost three decades of successful use, that patent was going to expire. That would have meant that anybody who wanted to, could produce their own DDT and sell it without having to pay licensing fees. The result would have meant an enormous profit loss for the company that held the patent. To prevent this, the anti-DDT lobby was started with the claim that it was actually very dangerous too humans. By the time the patent did expire, DDT had already been banned. Any real competition was foiled. Instead, new pestisides where introduced. The only problem was that they where actually less effective then DDT and probably just as harmful to the environment. Not that it really mattered from a commercial point of view. The new pesticedes where patent protected, meaning they could be sold at higher prices with little fear for competition. Thus insuring that high profits would remain. Then again, the patent thing could just as well have been coincidence.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

53.  why was this rated as "incoherent"?   by cryofan       at Mon 10 Mar 7:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 37     It makes perfect sense to me: DDT is/was a very effective pesticide, however the patent was due to expire. So therefore the patent holder helped get DDT banned so that OTHER pesticides that were still validly patented by the patent holder of DDT could be sold WITHOUT COMPETITION FROM DDT, WHICH WOULD SOON BE UNPATENTED ANYWAY. Once a patent expires, the pesticide would be able to be cheaply manufactured (i.e., without license fees) and sold, and therefore the patent holder on DDT would not be able to sell their NEW, patented (and therefore profitable) pesticides. Clear enough? Homo Sapiens Americanus: A Documentary   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  Alternatives   by r00       at Sun 9 Mar 9:26am score of 1     There are alternatives to DDT that are still effective, and in many cases, better treatments for malaria. The center for disease control recommends [LINK] doxycycline for most situations, including a host of other perscription drugs. Why then aren't the Africans using them? Cost. While the world might be neglecting the African malaria epidemic, there other solutions than providing them with a drug that has been shown to wreck havoc on ecosystems.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

54.  umm..DDT is not a drug or treatment for malaria   by cryofan       at Mon 10 Mar 7:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 41     There are alternatives to DDT that are still effective, and in many cases, better treatments for malaria. DDT is a pesticide, which is typically sprayed over the countryside to kill insects (such as mosquitoes, which cause malaria). Homo Sapiens Americanus: A Documentary   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  best of luck, again and again and again...   by lennyelias       at Sun 9 Mar 10:10am score of 1     The mosquito-borne illness costs Uganda more than $347 million a year. Today, up to 40 percent of the country's outpatient care goes to people thus infected. Total infections are so numerous that the government doesn't even try to track them, but last year, 80,000 people died of the disease, half of them children under the age of five. Stupid Scenario of the Day: DDT is re-introduced to control the mosquito population in the malaria ridden regions of Africa. The very next year Malaria fatalities drop by 80,000 --- but 80,000 more people die of starvation because fish and bird populations are down and money has been diverted from food programs to stomp out mosquitoes. Not enough fish or birds can be found to feed the starving masses. Scientists claim that although DDT is not affecting the reproductive cycle of birds or fish, the lack of mosquitoes is starving the fish and foul. The next year 160,000 people die from starvation as fish and bird populations cannot recover and brood numbers continue to drop. The pro "lets save Africa from itself" crowd claims yet another Pyrrhic victory for reducing malaria deaths and forges ahead to tackle the recent unexplanable increase in starvation. Sarcasm is just one of the many complimentary services we offer...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

52.  DDT & Florida Panthers = Harm To Humans?   by Prexaspes       at Sun 9 Mar 6:29pm score of 1     Well, whether DDT harms humans or not, there has been a great deal of work on how DDT has harmed Florida panthers. Specifically DDT has been found to reduce birth rates, hamper the immune system of panthers, etc. Now, whether such research is applicable to humans is another thing. Quite frankly, Panthers as a species may simply be overly-sensitive to DDT (and what it breaks down to - DDE), and this may also be true for the particular species of birds that it appears to impact also. As far as I know, DDT, like most chemicals (human made or "natural"), still has not been researched enough to tell us whether its use increases certain rates of cancer or other diseases in humans. Furthermore, that researchers have been able to draw direct correlations between the existence of DDT in the panther's environment and the adverse effects from such on the panthers is something of a misnomer quite frankly in the field of eco-toxicology. In other words, more research in this field needs to be done. As far as demonizing environmentalists is concerned, I think the effort is silly. Admittedly folks might have over-reacted, but no more than we see over-reactions today concerning say strangers abducting children. You probably have too much confidence in human beings if you don't expect them when confronted with vaguely scary events, etc. with anything less than sheer panic. :) Call me cynical. :) Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]