GREEN - We Can Do It: When it comes to the environment, women lead the way

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/8/6 | Gregory Dicum

[SmithL]

From Rachel Carson, the founder of modern environmentalism whose 1962 book "Silent Spring" first raised popular awareness of industrial chemicals in the environment, to Wangari Maathai, the 2004 Nobel Peace Laureate who mobilized women in East Africa to plant more than 20 million trees, the story of environmentalism is the story of women going up against long odds to do what they know is right.

Because today is International Women's Day, it's a perfect time to celebrate a few of the many women -- from radical rabble-rousers to corporate officers -- who give the environmental movement much of its strength and energy. In the past year, just under half of the more than 50 people I've interviewed for this column have been women.

Melinda Kramer, co-founder of the Berkeley-based Women's Global Green Action Network, says that's to be expected. "Women are inextricably linked to issues of environmental sustainability," she explains, "as mothers, as caretakers, as food producers, as consumers and as nurturers." Kramer, who had been working with women leaders in Africa, China and Siberia, founded the organization to provide training and resources to female grassroots environmental advocates around the world.

"In order to ensure their own health, and that of their family and communities, women really need to manage and influence environmental policies," she says. "For a lot of women, environmentalism is too narrow a term for their work -- social justice and human rights have a lot to do with women's everyday responsibilities."

[rlmorel]

She was one of the people responsible for banning DDT, if my memory serves me correctly.

Millions have died from Malaria in those regions, I think is the point he makes.

She was a tool, no doubt about that.

[Hank Rearden]

As paranoid whiners, many women fit the bill perfectly.

[GreenFreeper]

If it doesn't cause cancer, why is it banned for ag use?

While it may not cause cancer, it persists for an extremely long time and has been shown to dsirupt development and cause death in other organisms (lots on amphibians). Any pesticide is going to cause some unwanted harm, the key is moderation. I'm not anti-DDT by any means, it just irks me when people spread the misconception that DDT is some wonder pesticide adn the banning is directly responsible for millions of deaths.

This site has a pretty good summary of the DDT issue and debunks much of junkscience. You have to sift through some republican bashing but in this case the majority of it is justified.

http://timlambert.org/category/science/ddt/

[sully777]

There is half credit to both of you. DDT was indeed banned in 1972 for agricultural use while it remained legal as a vector eradicator (kills bad insects). However, WWF and other green organizations have lobbied worldwide for its total ban, despite the fact it plays a major role in combatting disease-carrying insects.

Moreover, most media outlets say DDT was totally banned in 1972, not just the book Junk Science. (See PBS.org under Frontline and DDT as well as Environmental Defence http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4407)

---

DDT Ban Takes Effect
[EPA press release - December 31, 1972]
http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm

The general use of the pesticide DDT will no longer be legal in the United States after today, ending nearly three decades of application during which time the once-popular chemical was used to control insect pests on crop and forest lands, around homes and gardens, and for industrial and commercial purposes.

An end to the continued domestic usage of the pesticide was decreed on June 14, 1972, when William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued an order finally cancelling nearly all remaining Federal registrations of DDT products. Public health, quarantine, and a few minor crop uses were excepted, as well as export of the material.

The effective date of the EPA June cancellation action was delayed until the end of this year to permit an orderly transition to substitute pesticides, including the joint development with the U.S. Department of Agriculture of a special program to instruct farmers on safe use of substitutes.

The cancellation decision culminated three years of intensive governmental inquiries into the uses of DDT. As a result of this examination, Ruckelshaus said he was convinced that the continued massive use of DDT posed unacceptable risks to the environment and potential harm to human health.

Major legal challenges to the EPA cancellation of DDT are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The courts have not ruled as yet in either of these suits brought by pesticide manufacturers.

DDT was developed as the first of the modern insecticides early in World War II. It was initially used with great effect to combat malaria, typhus, and the other insect-borne human diseases among both military and civilian populations.

A persistent, broad-spectrum compound often termed the "miracle" pesticide, DDT came into wide agricultural and commercial usage in this country in the late 1940s. During the past 30 years, approximately 675,000 tons have been applied domestically. The peak year for use in the United States was 1959 when nearly 80 million pounds were applied. From that high point, usage declined steadily to about 13 million pounds in 1971, most of it applied to cotton.

The decline was attributed to a number of factors including increased insect resistance, development of more effective alternative pesticides, growing public and user concern over adverse environmental side effects--and governmental restriction on DDT use since 1969.

---

Radio National
DDT Ban and Malaria
Monday 19 April 1999 
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s22432.htm

Summary: An international group of malaria researchers oppose the total ban of DDT. They say that the ban will cause a huge increase in malaria related deaths.
An international group of eminent malaria researchers have come out strongly opposing the total ban on DDT which many environmental organisations are pushing as quickly as possible on governments around the world.

They say the ban will cause a huge increase in malaria related deaths and far outweigh the benefits of a complete and premature ban of the vilified insecticide.

The group is called the Malaria Foundation International and its Australian representative is Dr Annette Gero, who runs a large lab at the University of New South Wales searching for new anti-malarial drugs.

She like others, finds the malaria pandemic to be a tragedy...[Excerpt]

---

CNN Sci-Tech
Group calls for worldwide DDT ban
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9901/29/ddt.enn/
 
January 29, 1999
Web posted at: 11:30 AM EST
By Environmental News Network staff

(ENN) -- The World Wildlife Fund Wednesday called for a global ban on the production and use of DDT by 2007. DDT has been banned in North America, but is still used to control mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects in many developing nations.

WWF said new research shows that DDT sprays -- even when used indoors -- leak significant levels of DDT into the environment and pose hazards to both human health and wildlife.

The environmental group released its new report as representatives from more than 100 nations gathered in Nairobi, Kenya, to discuss whether to recommend a global ban on 12 of the most toxic chemicals, including DDT...[Excerpt]

[Vaquero]

"your not going to cite Junkscience now are you?"

The left and the so called green movement is ripe with it. do you consider Dr Crichtons studies junk science?

[Publius6961]

GREEN - We Can Do It: When it comes to the environment, women lead the way

Not surprising in the least.
It has been established beyond dispute that the female nature tends towards emotion and male towards reason.

Hysteria is a subcategory of emotion, not of reason.
The environment, as an issue, began as an analysis through reason, and quickly degenerated to pure emotion.
More's the pity, and the extraordinary waste of money.

[Publius6961]

I'm not anti-DDT by any means, it just irks me when people spread the misconception that DDT is some wonder pesticide adn the banning is directly responsible for millions of deaths.

That. I'm afraid, is irrefutable, whether it irks you or not.

[AmericanChef]

-"Women are inextricably linked to issues of environmental sustainability," she explains, "as mothers, as caretakers, as food producers, as consumers and as nurturers."-

Uh-huh. They're so busy taking on "the world" they've ignored their own resident communities. Do these women know their neighbors? So much for being mothers, caretakers, and nurturers.

[GreenFreeper]

The left and the so called green movement is ripe with it. do you consider Dr Crichtons studies junk science?

Well Crichton has conducted no studies to my knowledge- he only cites them. I have a lot of respect for him and the work he does. He is a writer and I don't hold him to the same scientific scrutiny. The problem with junkscience is they purport to be scientific. Further, their use of selective citations is troublesome- often times the use of the mainstream media misuse of the actual scientific study. For example they cite 1 article about how DDT does not cause egg-thinning. If they'd look at the article, they were looking at very low dosages. That does not negate the mounds of other research that suggests the opposite. It's embarrassing that junkscience is associated with mainstream conservatism.

The main problem i have is the politics being played on both sides of the aisle. It can make the truth difficult to find.

[GreenFreeper]

That. I'm afraid, is irrefutable, whether it irks you or not

Really don't have time today to get into a big discussion but how could DDT have prevent millions of deaths? It's not banned in africa? There are political and social constraints limiting its use there but how could you say DDT would have prevented all those deaths when resistance to it in just a few years is well documented?

[Vaquero]

The main problem i have is the politics being played on both sides of the aisle. It can make the truth difficult to find. AGREED! ................... I do believe however that one 'Maunder minimum' or one mega-volcano explosion will make anything we have done to crap up the planet appear truly insignificant

[GreenFreeper]

AGREED! ................... I do believe however that one 'Maunder minimum' or one mega-volcano explosion will make anything we have done to crap up the planet appear truly insignificant

Very true. That's what the wackos and media fail to realize. It's not all gloom and doom. That said we can't go around doing as we please because something could happen. If thats the case, why go to college, get an education, save up money...if I could get in a car accident and die at any time.