50-80 Million Deaths Blamed On Environmental Extremists’ DDT Ban

LifeSite ^ | August 15, 2005

[NYer]

August 15, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Communism and fascism, as horrifically bloody as their legacy has been, have a lesser death count attributed to them than the misguided worldwide ban on DDT enforced by the World Health Organization, international aid organizations and others. So reports John Jalsevac in the LifeSiteNews.com Special Report, Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide.

Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, decrying the supposedly great harm caused by all pesticides to the natural environment and humans was released in 1962 and eventually led to the ban on DDT, still the most effective, cheapest, and arguably the cleanest way to stop the spread of deadly malaria. Jalsevac reveals what has  now been proven to be junk science in Carson’s claims and the far less than altruistic motives of those who continue to enforce the unjustified ban on the use of life-saving DDT.

This report is a must read for students, environmental enthusiasts, social justice advocates and most of the rest of the world that has been falsely led to believe that the banning of DDT has been a good and necessary measure. On the contrary, as this special report reveals, it has been a disaster and we owe it to the people of impoverished, Third World nations to correct this injustice with haste.

Subsections in Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide are titled:

1. The Worst Crime of the 20th Century
2. The Tragic History Of DDT and Silent Spring
3. Rachel Carson’s Allegations Disproved
4. The DDT Ban Put In Perspective
5. Why Does the DDT Ban Continue?
6. DDT and Population Control

See the complete LifeSiteNews.com Special Report
Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/050816a.html  HTML version
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005_docs/DDTworstcrim...  Acrobat Version

[flashbunny]

hey, their intentions were good. Who cares if science wasn't on their side???

[PetroniusMaximus]

As if they care!

They want to reduce human population.

[cogitator]

The DDT Ban Myth

Putting Myths to Bed

Quoting from the latter:

" Malaria is a major, ongoing disease problem in much of the developing world. Increases in the incidence of the disease have occurred for complex reasons. Reduced insecticide usage is one, but others include the resistance to treatment in both the parasite and the mosquito vectors, changes in land use that have provided new mosquito habitat, and the movement of people into new, high-risk areas."

"Most nations where malaria is a problem, and most health professionals working in the field of malaria control, support the targeted use of DDT, as part of the tool kit for malaria control. Most also agree that more cost-effective, less environmentally persistent alternatives are needed. There are some effective alternative chemicals for the control of adult mosquitoes, but preventing their further development is lack of invest ment by industry, because malaria is largely a disease of the poor."

"Malaria is responsible for enormous suffering and death. The facts are readily available in the scientific literature. To blame a reduction in DDT usage for the death of 10-30 million people from malaria is not just simple-minded, it is demonstrably wrong. To blame a mythical, monolithic entity called the environmental lobby for the total reduction in DDT usage is not just paranoid, it is also demonstrably wrong."

[Stellar Dendrite]

a good book is called "Eco Imperialism; green power black death"

[George from New England]

God gave us the scientists and skills to make DDT. There was a time when people came before nature. Anti-God elements took the God-given tools away by false claims and misguided methods.

Its time some sense returns.

[conserv13]

Thanks.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Liberalism and it's deadly sisters, communism and socialism are the deadliest scourages to ever infect the planet. 46 million aborted babies, 55 million dead from malaria, 100 million dead after their "gun control" schemes. Who besides God knows the actual number that have died from their selfish and deliberate stupidity.

[Tatze]

PING, for later!

[Hold DiMayo]

The case against ddt was that it made the shells bird eggs very thin which cause the little birdies to die prematurally. But 30 years later along comes West Nile virus, which is spead by those pesky misquitoes. The misquetoes kill the birds before they even get a chance to lay the eggs. Since birds eat insects incuding miquitoes and there aren't many birds now, the population of the miquitoes continue to grow as the bird population dwindles.

[flashbunny]

Sorry, that letter is BS

"support the targeted use of DDT"

Yeah, except using 'targeted' DDT in africa is like painting the siding on one house in detroit. It's a bigger problem than being politically correct can solve.

There is little reason to use DDT in a limited (the real translation of targeted) way. It is cheap and effective. Refusing to use it because of BS 'environmental concerns' will just kill more people.

But hey, since they're just those pesky "dark people" from africa, who really gives a damn, eh?

[markman46]

what is happening to the bird population then?

[NeilGus]

While I think the DDT ban cost millions of lives, communism cost over 100 M lives (probably less than 200 M lives).

Communism was (and is) really, really bad.

[MD_Willington_1976]

Truth be told, I wouldn't mind several drums of DDT to use on the neighbors property, it's a ditch with fricken huge mosquito's in it...the little turds bite me daily...

[cogitator]

You are overlooking the fact that using it "promiscuously" (such as the noted use on agricultural crops) rapidly results in mosquito resistance to DDT.

[Tarantulas]

I agree, that letter was wrong. Good old junkscience.com has some great information on DDT. Here's their DDT FAQ:

Also:

Anti-DDT activism led to hearings before an EPA administrative law judge in 1971-72. After 7 months and 9,000 pages of testimony, the judge concluded "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

Despite the exculpatory ruling, then-EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT.

And:

Donor agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development have pressured Belize, Bolivia and Mozambique not to use DDT — or risk losing their aid money, adds Bate.

The AID’s blackmail is eerily similar to its 1970s view that the failure of the Global Malaria Eradication Program (1956-1969) was a blessing in disguise. "Better off dead than riotously reproducing," an AID official said.

A committee of the National Academy of Sciences wrote in 1970, "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT... in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that otherwise would have been inevitable."

From here - DDT ban is genocidal

You can find more DDT articles on www.junkscience.com by going to their main web page and using either the Google or Yahoo search function.

[cogitator]

Despite the exculpatory ruling, then-EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT.

In the United States.

Donor agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development have pressured Belize, Bolivia and Mozambique not to use DDT — or risk losing their aid money, adds Bate.

This is partially true, and partially wrong. Most of the pressure was aimed at stopping aerial spraying campaigns, and one of the main reasons to do that was to reduce the occurrence of resistance. However, malaria funding has focused on medicines for active malaria cases and not as much on prevention efforts, and they aren't funding DDT programs for indoor and wall spraying, which is effective. This may be due to environmental concerns in the U.S. -- it's clearly a factor for European aid agencies. I agree with the position that the aid programs should include funding for indoor spraying campaigns. So, apparently, does the World Health Organization:

World Health Organization Position on DDT (PDF)

[alwaysconservative]

Excellent article; thanks for posting it!

[flashbunny]

You need to do a little more research. And possibly involve non-ninny, objective DDT supporters in your reading material.

Broad application results in resistance to DDT (after killing off for REALLY cheap) but it also results in mosquitos who are resistant AVOIDING sprayed areas.

You make the call. A 'scary' application of DDT that harms nothing except mosquitos, or politically correct application of less-than effective, more expensive pesticides that result in more people dying.

For some reason, I think you'd favor the 'more people dying' approach. Does that make you feel better, or just more superior that you fall for junk science???

[WOSG]

Oh yeah, post from a site that hates Lomborg the eco-skeptic, that's the ticket ... apparently, banning DDT was a great environmental activism triumph but had zero impact on actual DDT use ... huh??? Gimme a break...

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

... and ...

http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn120100.htm
The World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and 250 other environmental groups will advocate the insecticide DDT be banned at next week’s United Nations Environment Programme meeting in Johannesburg. The meeting’s aim is a treaty banning or restricting so-called persistent organic chemicals (POPs).


...

The WWF’s chicanery doesn’t end with the science. Publicly, the WWF claims it backed off the demand of a DDT ban by 2007 in favor of regulatory controls. Don’t be fooled.

The would-be controls are so onerous and costly for the third world that they would operate as a de facto ban. Of the 23 countries using DDT, only 9 countries so far asked for exemptions under the impending treaty. The others either have stockpiled DDT in advance or have been scared off by the burdensome regulatory scheme, according to Roger Bate of FightingMalaria.org.

Donor agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development have pressured Belize, Bolivia and Mozambique not to use DDT — or risk losing their aid money, adds Bate.

The AID’s blackmail is eerily similar to its 1970s view that the failure of the Global Malaria Eradication Program (1956-1969) was a blessing in disguise. “Better off dead than riotously reproducing,” an AID official said.