National Review has a column reviewing a new book, 3 Billion and Counting, that dissects the harsh human cost of banning DDT. There are things that should be banned, of course, but such decisions should be based on sound science and cost-benefit analysis. Sadly, that’s not what happened with the politically-motivated decision to ban this particular pesticide.
3 Billion and Counting, which premieres this Friday in Manhattan, was produced by Dr. Rutledge Taylor, a California physician who specializes in preventive medicine. His film will both shock and anger you. DDT was first synthesized in 1877, but it was not until 1940 that a Swiss chemist demonstrated that it could kill insects without any harm to humans. It was introduced into widespread use during World War II and became the single most important pesticide in maintaining human health for the next two decades. The scientist who discovered the insecticidal properties of DDT, Dr. Paul Müller, was awarded the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on DDT. (In the 1940s and 1950s the chemical was the “secret” ingredient in a popular new cocktail, the Mickey Slim: gin, with a pinch of DDT.) In 1962, Rachel Carson’s lyrical but scientifically flawed book, Silent Spring, argued eloquently, but erroneously, that pesticides, especially DDT, were poisoning both wildlife and the environment – and also endangering human health. …In Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), DDT spraying had reduced malaria cases from 2.8 million in 1948 to 17 in 1963. After spraying stopped, malaria cases rose sharply, reaching 2.5 million over the next decade. Scientists have never found an effective substitute for DDT — and so the malaria death rate has kept on soaring.
For some in the environmental movement, the death toll is welcome, as they also erroneously fear over population.
Malaria infection rates have been dropping for a decade, and the malaria death toll now is less than half what it was when DDT spraying of cotton crops was stopped in the U.S., and a third what it was when DDT use peaked in 1959 an 1960. Under 900,000 people died from malaria last year, the lowest death rate in human history.
So, if these guys will lie to you about how many people die from malaria, and how many people get infected, what won’t they lie to you about?
(Malaria cases did not start rising in 1963 — DDT spraying in Africa has never been been banned, and has never ceased; except, DDT has stopped being effective in many places, and so health care professionals have moved on to use other stuff.)
Hey, 3 Billion and Counting is a movie, not a book. I’ve seen it and it is spectacular! If you want evidence of the safety of DDT and the political gyrations that led to its banning in 1972, be sure to see the film. It opens in West Hollywood next week at the Laemmle’s Sunset 5. It’s a movie that will change the history of the disease, malaria. DDT is SAFE! It has to be used massively and immediately. (BTW, Ed Darrell is a troll. He has his information skewed. Ignore his lies.)
Ooops! 3 Billion and Counting opens September 24 (that’s THIS week) at the Laemmle’s Sunset 5 in West Hollywood, CA. Go SEE it! It’s informative, poignant and ELECTRIC. Don’t miss it! Here’s a link http://www.3billionandcounting.com/
What I’m thinking is that all biology, chemistry and medical students should get themselves along to Laemmle’s Sunset 5 at Sunset Blvd, West Hollywood, to see an informative, fact packed, documentary on DDT.
You have been told that DDT is toxic, that it isn’t effective against malaria carrying mozzies, that it was responsible for the deaths of bald eagles in the US, that it causes cancer, that it is harmful to humans. Well, what if what you have been told is a lie? If you’re interested in truth – go see the movie. For a taster to wet your appetite, here is the trailer: http://www.3billionandcounting.com/trailer.php
Trudy, where did you see the movie, if it’s not yet opened?
Worldwatcher, what if what we’ve been told is the scientific truth? I challenge you to produce any serious research that indicates DDT did not harm eagles. Can you do it?
3 Billion and Counting opened in New York City on Sept. 17 and was shown through the 23rd. (It’s now playing in West Hollywood, CA.) I met with the director/producer Dr. Rutledge Taylor, and learned more in one evening than I’d thought possible. This film will revolutionize what has been (falsely) believed about DDT. The history of repressed documents is now revealed: the 1972 DDT ban contradicted the overwhelming support for DDT in the EPA hearings (that Rucklelshaus did not attend — for whatever reasons). His ban was a political move to satisfy environmentalists and the Nixon White House agenda. People have suffered because of that self-serving decision. And by the way, Mr. Darrell… you have had the research presented to you on other blogs. You are either too dense to recall, or you simply love to bait people. You are trying to pick a fight, so you can rant some more. I recommend that WorldWatcher steer clear of you. You are trouble, simply an agent provocateur.
What evidence do you claim was contradicted by the ’72 ban? Remember, two federal courts were standing by to ban DDT completely, based on their findings that DDT was deadly and uncontrollable. EPA’s action kept it on the market for export, to fight malaria.
Judge Sweeney at EPA did not find that DDT is harmless. Quite to the contrary, Sweeney wrote in the findings of the hearing:
Here in the Southwest we’re still recovering from the devastation DDT did to bats — bats, you know, eat disease-carrying mosquitoes, and thereby prevent disease in humans.
It’s almost humorous that, rather than cite any research, you attack me personally. Do you dislike all Boy Scouts? All Reagan appointees? Or just those who have the facts you can’t contradict?
Been waiting in moderation since September — what’s up?
Was it the link?
I wrote on September 27:
What evidence do you claim was contradicted by the ’72 ban? Remember, two federal courts were standing by to ban DDT completely, based on their findings that DDT was deadly and uncontrollable. EPA’s action kept it on the market for export, to fight malaria.
Judge Sweeney at EPA did not find that DDT is harmless. Quite to the contrary, Sweeney wrote in the findings of the hearing:
Here in the Southwest we’re still recovering from the devastation DDT did to bats — bats, you know, eat disease-carrying mosquitoes, and thereby prevent disease in humans.
It’s almost humorous that, rather than cite any research, you attack me personally. Do you dislike all Boy Scouts? All Reagan appointees? Or just those who have the facts you can’t contradict?
(People who seek the facts can probably figure out how to make this work as a link to Sweeney’s stuff:
http://www DOT epa DOT gov/history/topics/ddt/ddt_C.pdf
On April 25, 1972, EPA Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeney issued a 113-page report, in which he concluded that DDT should not be banned. What Ed quotes above is from the Findings of Fact. What he fails to mention is from the Conclusions of Law:
9. DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man.
10. DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man.
11. The uses of DDT under the registrations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.
12. The adverse effect on beneficial animals from the use of DDT under the registrations involved here is not unreasonable on balance with its benefits.
Available here, dear reader, for you to reach your own conclusions:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/ddt_hearing.pdf
Another post sent to moderation due to the links for reader use. Moderator, some help please?
Of course, “the uses of DDT under the registrations involved here” needs some explanation. The label Judge Sweeney had before him proposed that DDT should be restricted to indoor use, only for health-related issues, only by professionals. Under those restrictions, there is little evidence of “deleterious uses.”
Of course, simply putting that on the label would leave DDT available for over-the-counter use, and purchasers could abuse it to their hearts’ content. Remember two federal courts had already ruled DDT must be banned completely.
In the appeals process, the rule was modified to make as a regulation the label restrictions the DDT manufacturers proposed, under which Judge Sweeney said there would be no “deleterious effect.” It’s a bit dishonest to claim Judge Sweeney’s findings applied to other uses, I think.
The rules we have now are the rules proposed by the DDT manufacturers, except as federal regulation and not just a label restriction. The difference is, of course, that under a regulation, DDT is not available over-the-counter. Everyone agrees that’s good, now.
Dan, the source you cited, “21stcenturysciencetech,” is a Lyndon Larouche publication. Are you part of his organization?
Or, is “Unbiased View” someone else?
Progress against malaria: http://www.who.int/entity/malaria/publications/world_malaria_report_2012/wmr2012_factsheet.pdf