Is the myth of the DDT ban similar to the many myths about global warming?

Question

The American Enterprise Institute, which is also a major global warming denying think tank, appears to have perpetrated the myth that environmentalists caused the deaths of millions of people by banning the use of DDT in malaria prevention (vector control).
http://www.nrns.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51:bate-and-switch-how-a-free-market-magician-manipulated-two-decades-of-environmental-science-|title=Bate

In reality DDT has never been banned for vector control. Most environmental groups in fact support a clause in the Stockholm Convention that allows DDT use for public health reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Restrictions_on_usage

Many of the people who buy into myths about global warming also seem to buy into the DDT ban myth.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgTMMvXkI9KWrXLJw1aixNbsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100611114131AABezCs&show=7#profile-info-ipmqg9Apaa

Is the myth of the DDT ban similar to the many myths about global warming?

Answer 1

This is a complex subject, and I believe that lack of knowledge about the background, past & current uses and proposed ban are lacking across the board. For instance, you cite the U.S. ban, but even that does permit use of the chemical in the event of a malaria outbreak. So I've included a few links to hopefully educate everybody.



DDT is a powerful tool but the residual effects in the environment need to be controlled. The U.S. EPA is preparing to cap a deposit off DDT off the California Coast next year at great expense. Some of those links are included too, as anyone spouting off about DDT should have a decent background on the subject. It has been my experience that most people know a little bit about this subject and just take it from there. Given the history, given the powerful nature of this chemical, that just isn't appropriate. Bottom line, misinformation campaigns don't work if the public is informed & aware. There are groups pushing an agenda, and by being better equipped with the facts it is easier to refute misinformation by groups like American Enterprise Institute and the Malaria Foundation.

Answer 2

Some scientists and many environmental advocacy groups WERE warning of an ice age in the 1970s. The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971) The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968) I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969) In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970) Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976) This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976 There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975) This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976 If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

Answer 3

Note that every single denier here has dodged answering the myth about DDT being banned internationally. Also, every last one of them has ignored the fact that a primary reason for banning its agricultural use was to PRESERVE its effectiveness as a vector control measure - widespread use was already resulting in DDT-resistant insects. Walter Reed estimated that 5 more years of widespread spraying would have completely eliminated DDT's usefulness for disease control. The reason that DDT and a number of other synthetic pyrethroids are effective tools today is that we learned their proper use - and legislated against indiscriminate use.

Answer 4

It's probable exaggeration is similar.

I found the first link to be a biased (leftist) but honest attempt at the truth.

One thing I noticed, you didn't mention that the Stockholm Convention took place in 2004. Most environmental groups support something in a convention that was made more than 30 years after the ban. That was mighty brave of most of them. It beggs the question, which ones didn't. It didn't matter if USAID did if what Bates claimed was true. I get the feeling that all we are getting is spin and coverup. Indeed, how similar it is to AGW.



I have a personal interest in birds of prey. Off the top of my head, I could tell you the scientific name of just about every one of them in the US as well as some foreign ones. I have spent countless hours observing birds of prey. I knew where Red Tailed Hawk and Great Horned Owls nested and I sometimes monitored the young birds early lives. I love them dearly. The ban on shooting them is certainly partly responsible for their comeback. The effects of DDT always seemed to be a mistery. I read the National Geographic and other articles as a child which described the thinning shells. One thing that should be noted is that raptors typically have mortality with chicks so even if a percentage of eggs didn't make it, it might not significantly affect the actual population.



In the article you linked to it said, Multiple mechanisms may be at work, or different mechanisms may operate in different species.[1] Some studies show that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically, eggshell thickness remains 10–12 percent thinner than before DDT was first used.



When I see this, I think the logical conclusion is that there probably isn't a 10 to 12% thinning after DDT as they suggested. What is means is that their assumption was probably wrong and the natural thickness was 10 to 12% less than they assumed thus effectively exaggerating the effects of DDT thinning. The way nature works is that egg shells are only thick enough to barely protect the chick. If the shell is too thick, it will take extra nutrition to make it. Female birds have to store so much calcium for eggs that they have special tissue storage in their femurs (if memory serves). Obviously birds have to minimize their weight. In addition the chicks have to peck through the shells and sometimes need help getting out. If the shell is too thick, they die of exhaustion. I am not convinced that certain people weren't finding what they were looking for, not necessarily the actual effects of DDT. Again, it may thus be similar to AGW.



Then again, I think DDT may have caused harmful thinning. It is something that needed study. I remain skeptical of the ban but I admit that I don't have enough knowledge on the actual chemistry and biological effects.

Answer 5

Yes it is. It's also from the same people who defended tobacco companies by claiming smoking didn't cause cancer.



Widespread use of DDT didn't work anyway. It killed insects that preyed on crop pests and allowed mosquitoes to evolve resistance. Overuse made it near useless in some parts of the world.

Answer 6

The 100 watt lightbulb was dangerous too, I'm glad we just keep banning things!

Answer 7

So you call it a DDT myth? What about the fact that the Brown Pelican has recently been taken of the endangered species list? The ban of DDT, and the Endangered Species Act are both responsible for the return of just this one species alone. DDT was shown to cause the egg shells to become so weak that they couldn't hold up against the weight of the embryo inside the egg. Before that ban, there was one year that it was estimated to have produced only one successful egg laying. I know the deniers hate to connect dots logical, and instead choose fuzzy math, and fringe science, but there are certain results that are just plain hard to deny.

Answer 8

<>



Yeah, I've seen the DDT thing before.



Denial of global warming and denial of the dangers of secondhand cigarette smoke very often go together (in part because the CO2 polluters hired former tobacco industry hacks), and the DDT claim goes with those two things also, but not with a high frequency.



It is essentially a "syndrome"--multiple psychopathologies tending to appear together.



EDIT



expel says sarcastically: <>



You missed Dana's whole point. he noted that DDT use for malaria prevention was NOT decreased.



Think it out.

Answer 9

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091501012.html



Guess the Washington post is in on the conspiracy, those darm redneck repubs!



Isn't it amazing, that malaria has increased because of AGW, but not because of the lessened use of DDT to control malaria.



Just go ahead and say, that you are wiling to sacrifice many lives to "save the planet" with little to no information at all.





Let me get this straight, For 30 years WHO had stated a policy of how DDTs should not be used. They were wrong for 30 years, they changed their policy to save lives, and they received criticism for changing their policies from environmental groups.



Wow, Your nrns article was funny. The wizard of Oz is behind the scenes manipulating everything. Cool, conspiracy theory. That lunar landing was probably faked too, wasn't it?

Answer 10

The boot is on the other foot. Banning agricultural use, as was done by the Stockholm Convention, slows down the development of resistance by disease vectors.



But yes, it's the same people using the same tactics: tobacco, CFCs, greenhouse gases ...

Answer 11

It appears that there are no subjects that geologists are not experts in.