Posted on 04/05/2007 8:14:59 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
DDT - Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane – is a chemical pesticide that was banned in the United States in 1972. The movement to ban DDT can be attributed to Silent Spring¸ a book by biologist Rachel Carson. Silent Spring focused on pesticides – particularly DDT – and their effect on the environment, with special consideration to birds (hence the name of the book; a “Silent Spring” because there are no birds to sing.) Due to the banning of DDT in the United States, a movement towards a global ban was swiftly initiated. Today, the use of DDT – with certain exceptions, such as controlled in-door spraying – has been extinguished worldwide. The question arises: what was the cost of banning DDT? Considering what a cheap and effective pesticide DDT is, it is no surprise that many African countries are once again considering its use for combating mosquitoes that carry malaria. The usage of DDT is moral, because its ability to save human lives is well worth the potential environmental damage that DDT might cause.
First of all, consider that, in 2003, there were three hundred million cases of malaria throughout the world, with three million of those afflicted dying from the disease. A majority of these cases occurred in Africa. All of those lives could have been easily saved, and those lives are worth far more than the potential environmental damage that the increased usage of DDT could cause. It is surprising how many radical environmentalists tend to forget how valuable the human race can be. Despite the human race’s capacity for evil (Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Pol Pot are just a few that come to mind), there are also many who have done immeasurable good for human society and the world. Think of Reverend Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, Plato, or Aristotle. Think of famous conservationists like Theodore Roosevelt and Edward Abbey. Humans possess basic instincts like all other animals, but our rationality and intelligence make us a unique species: one worthy of protection over all others.
The immediate question that arises is how severe is the pollution caused by DDT. Numerous studies have been done on this very subject over the years, and some results have been made clear. For instance, as cited in WHO’s – the World Health Organization’s – Environmental Health Criteria pamphlet, bioaccumulation occurs due to the absorption of DDT by lower-level organisms. As these organisms are devoured, the concentration of DDT rises as one goes up through the food chain. Microorganisms are the most heavily affected by DDT, but fish are also highly susceptible to the pesticide. Considering how toxic DDT is to aquatic organisms, there is a real threat of endangering the aquatic food supply for humans. However, considering the most malaria outbreaks occur inland (such as in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and other African nations), this might seem like a problem that can be sufficiently dealt with. Unfortunately, DDT can spread far beyond its target area, since it can travel via air currents, oceanic currents, and carrier organisms migrating to other areas. The presence of rivers – for instance, the Nile River – also has to be taken into account when trying to determine how far DDT can spread. Historically, the largest area of concern has been the effect of DDT on birds; however, studies here have been mixed.
In Silent Spring¸ Carson wrote about how interference of man with nature has resulted in some unintended consequences. She relayed an Alabama woman’s tale of the aftermath of a massive spraying program mandated by the government against fire ants. “Our place has been a veritable bird sanctuary for over half of a century. Last July, we all remarked, ‘There are more birds than ever.’ Then, suddenly, in the second week of August, they all disappeared…It was eerie, terrifying. What was man doing to our perfect and beautiful world?” The eggshells of birds were becoming thinner, and DDT was labeled as the cause. However, subsequent studies were inconclusive on this matter. The World Health Organization showed that it was not DDT that resulted in the thinning of eggshells, but rather DDE. DDE –Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene – is a metabolite of DDT; in other words, DDE is what emerges once DDT is broken down by the metabolic process of an organism. Logically, this would still implicate DDT as a root cause of the eggshell thinning; in real-life circumstances, however, this is not the case. A study in the 1970s by Dr. Robert Heath showed that reproductive failure occurred in ducks subjected to DDE, but only when the chemical was present at astronomically high levels. To naturally achieve such a level of DDE through the consumption of DDT-tainted organisms alone would require eating a fish of Moby Dick proportions daily. Suffice it to say, the effect on natural wildlife doesn’t even compare to the sheer number of human lives lost to malaria. If it came down to choosing whether to let millions of humans live or to let certain species of aquatic animals live, I would choose the humans every single time. To suggest that a bird or a fish is somehow morally equivalent to a human being is outrageous.
Opposition to the use of DDT is still prominent, but supporters of its use in Africa know that fully legalizing the use of DDT without repercussions will result in a lot of excess money: money that was once set aside solely for controlling the spread of malaria in Africa. An experiment in 2001 along the Thai-Myanmar border compared the cost of three different scenarios in three different areas: using insecticide-treating bed nets (ITNs), spraying DDT, and settling for surveillance of malaria symptoms so that immediate treatment could begin. In the end, the bed nets cost one dollar and fifty-four cents per one case of prevented malaria. DDT spraying cost one dollar and eighty-seven cents per one case of prevented malaria; malaria surveillance was the most costly, as it cost two dollars and fifty cents per one case of prevented malaria. Although this seems to indicate that ITNs would be more effective than DDT at dealing with carriers of malaria, it should be noted that in Tanzania, the use of nets permitted a reduction in DDT spraying, but could not replace it without an increased malaria incidence. Bed nets treated with insecticide may allow for the use of less DDT, but it cannot completely replace it. DDT, unlike ITNs, can be directly applied to insects that carry malaria – mostly mosquitoes – and to areas where they congregate. With the savings that using DDT will bring, money that was once devoted towards controlling the spread of malaria would instead be spent on other concerns. Modernizing Africa, establishing a communications infrastructure between the various nations, delivering food and drinkable water to starving people, and providing modern medicine to the sick and diseased are some concerns that come to mind.
The impact of DDT on human health is something to be concerned with; there are some concerns that the pesticide has a link with sexual dysfunction. Studies on declining male reproductive health in Africa have resulted in a number of theories about the cause, and DDT is often touted as a primary cause. However, this is not a worrisome case; utilizing a survey, a physical examination, and an analysis of semen, it was concluded that – despite a slight decrease in sperm count in those who had been subjected to the insecticide – no strong evidence existed to link DDT to declining reproductive health in men. It should also be noted that studies have been made concerning the growth patterns of fetuses, infants, and toddlers after being exposed to DDT. After analyzing those who had in-utero exposure to DDT, it was concluded that there was no apparent impairment in the growth of young children. The pesticide’s effect on humans does not seem substantial; not enough to ban DDT altogether for the sake of human health.
Although DDT has its faults, it has been erroneously demonized for other environmental crises. Its banning has contributed to a horrific situation in Africa, where cheap pesticides are a necessity in combating malaria. African leaders, whose countries do not have the finances of modern countries like the United States and Britain, are undoubtedly concerned about the welfare of their people. Despite a vast amount of foreign aid, disease remains a prominent problem in Africa. A more effective – and surely much more appreciated – measure would be to simply let the people of Africa do what is necessary to stop the spread of malaria. Once Africa modernizes, then environmentalists can start worrying about conservation again. After all, there won’t be much of a point worrying about the environment if the humans are all dead from a disease that could have easily been averted.
It seems that the millwheels of reason, as has been said of the millwheels of justice, grind exceeding slow.
On the contrary, that sounds like a dream result for some environmentalists. ;)
It’s just a shame that when a scientist jumps on the envirowacko bandwagon, they aren’t expected to provide solutions to the plethora of probelms we end up with by taking thier advice.
If the WHO had to find a solution to malaria prevention, prior to banning DDT, millions would be alive today.
I think it’s the same with Global Warming. Don’t tell me it’s happening, and we’re all going to die, without giving an economically viable solution. And, it’s not a viable solution to allow China and India to proceed unhindered while throwing our own citizens into the sacrificial pit.
Yes, yes and yes and great article.
Is The Use DDT Moral? ——How about? Is It Moral to Allow Millions To Die When You Can Save Them With DDT? (What was your grade?)
My brother was a cotton duster in the Mississippi Delta for many years prior to the banning of DDT. After each season the pilots were offered a health examination in the hospital by the government to assess the affects of DDT on them. After days, weeks, months of breathing heavy doses of DDT, it never showed up in his blood stream. He is 70 years old without any side effects of DDT.
His studies were done in Jackson, Mississippi. Surely, there is information about these studies somewhere.
“And most of Africa still uses DDT. Hell, in India, the mosquitoes are mostly resistant to the stuff because of it’s continued use.”
Source, please. This chemical has been BANNED EVERYWHERE. If you think otherwise, provide a link to a credible source.
(something written for a different audience but appropriate here also)
...a little background is in order of facts that I don’t think are in dispute. (I learned a lot in going to Africa 3 times, the Amazon Basin twice and SE Asia and New Guinea once and heavily investigated prophylactic medications.) Of the five common flavors of malaria, as determined by the prevalent species of mosquitoes, by far the most fatal is in sub-Saharan Africa and to a lesser degree SE Asia. By the early 1970s most of the fatal form had been mostly eradicated in southern Africa and reduced in central Africa DDT was great because it was cheap, was the most long lasting in killing the mosquitoes in the tropics while, unfortunately, its effect on brown pelicans and raptors was apparently deleterious in the temperate climes. . Since the US stopped funding DDT spraying programs in the early 1970s either directly or through the UN thereby effectively eliminating use of DDT, upwards of 80 million EXTRA people in Africa have died at a rate of 1-2 million per year (while reading this email maybe 50 kids will have died if it took you ~10 minutes). Botswana, and South Africa, inter alia, slowly resumed used of DDT beginning in the mid 90s to abate the killer disease vectors. Partially due to the great progress seen in southern Africa recently the US has also relented and will now permit spraying of a cocktail with DDT as a key ingredient.
I think the problem was partially bad science and also partially fervent environmentalism. After all, the ALJ in the EPA proceeding found in his draft decision against banning DDT based upon the science known at the time and it was EPA Administrator.William Ruckelshaus, (one of the EDF founders, first EPA head and appointed by Nixon) that overruled him. The rest as they say is history.......
I can’t believe that 4 decades ago people particularly including the environmentalists foresaw the ugly consequences that have occurred
Much like the Spanish influenza, DDT banning originated in the US and spread around the world in a vigorously adoptive manner. We should be concerned that our CO2 abatement enthusiasm doesn’t project itself into undesirable consequences in other areas of the world.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709608/posts?page=26
Here are some links which you should find of value.
Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide
By John Jalsevac The Worst Crime of the 20th Century
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/050816a.html
Is the DDT ban intended to control global population?
Written By: Paul K. Driessen
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1143
Make Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Font 6pt 7pt 8pt 9pt 10pt 11pt 12pt 13pt 14pt 15pt 16pt 17pt 18pt 19pt 20pt
Rachel Carson’s Ecological Genocide
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9169
Your essay is very good.
Your point is well taken, but people are really the greatest resource, assuming that their leaders instill in them logic, hard work, clear thinking and the concept of delayed gratification....
We don't really need DDT in the indutialized world. In the developing world banning of DDT has been and continues to be a death sentence for millions. So a qualified bump to you.
My Boy Scout troop leader in the '70s was a Marine on Guadalcanal. 30 years later he still had occasional malarial fevers.
Perhaps so, but, as we well know (some of us who pay attention), South Africa (and Rhodesia) was an international pariah for many years and went virtually its own way in everything. However, the REST of Africa and many other parts of the world where the malaria-carrying mosquito lives has NOT been able to use DDT due to the banning and the refusal of the countries that could have MADE it to sell DDT to the countries most in need of it. This has been documented well over the decades, sadly, and has led to the needless deaths of scores of millions, which can be laid directly at the door of the enviro-nazis. Just as man-made global warming can ALSO be laid at the door of power-hungry politicians and their “green” supporters.
I do not share this point of view. The survival of a certain species can be much more important than the survival of a few humans. There are for sure enough humans on this planet (diseases like malaria or HIV can even be understood as a natural correction of overpopulation) but we will miss the uniqueness of many animals and plants in the near future. It is for sure a tragedy if some people have to die, but if we do a rational appreciation of values it is better they perish instead the last individuals of a species that is threatened with extinction will vansih.
Everything on this planet is a compromise and human mankind has to find one in this question too. The reintroduction of DDT is for sure no solution.
Uniqueness?
Rational appreciation of values?
Your post is...stunning. I just don’t know what fills the space between your ears.
Your point as well-—
“If their leaders instill in them:”
LOGIC - Ooopss missed that one
Hard Work - yep, that’s what our welfare program is all about
Clear Thinking - What thinking? Let the Gubmint think for you, and tell you when and what it wants you to think...
Delayed Gratification - Hahahaha..... yeah...
Sounds like we are running on a course 100% opposite to the one you advocate... But I think that is what your point was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.