I hate to get off on a rant here, but I read something about DDT the other day that really ticked me off. For those of you too young to remember, DDT was used in the 60's to get rid of mosquitos and control all kinds of insect borne diseases like malaria, dengue and others. In 1972 the head of the EPA banned it for no reason other than to look good for greens - despite the recommendation by his own scientific panel that DDT posed no threat to humans, no threat to animals and properly used, no threat to the environment. Since that time - over 95 million people have died from instect borne disease, most of them African, most of them poor, and most of them women or children under the age of 5. When Sri Lanka, under pressure from the greenies banned DDT in 1964, malaria deaths went from 29 to 500,000 in five years.
Why does this sort of thing happen? Well, it happens because you and me want to be "cool" and "hip" and "relevant". We want to be like Leo and Paris and other plastic concoctions of the pop culture far left. Why if we're not like them - and don't think like them - we're nerds, or dorks or worse - conservatives.
HL Mencken once said, "the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of scientific hobgoblins - all of them imaginary."
In fact - the United Nations has even taken a position that certain chemicals have to be considered harmful for the environment, not because they have been proven bad, but because they have only been measured as beneficial.
Not only does this smack of colonialism (we white folk know far better than you backward Africans what is good for you, so don't get all uppity now!)it is probably racism of the worst kind - the kind that makes people dead simply because of their race.
The ban on DDT has killed about 600 people since you started reading this.
Do you feel particularly green at the moment, or are you, like I, ashamed of allowing these types of things to get equal air time in our schools, businesses and churches? Why not take push back just a little when the next do-gooder tells you that you need to recycle your banana peels or wash out soda bottles.
Maybe we won't be such easy pushovers next time.
Ketchup Chips - the random musings of a transplanted Canadian living the dream in the USA
In 1972 the head of the EPA banned it for no reason other than to look good for greens - despite the recommendation by his own scientific panel that DDT posed no threat to humans, no threat to animals and properly used, no threat to the environment.
ReplyDeleteActually, the administrative law judge found DDT was indeed a wildcard killer when used out of doors. He said he didn't think EPA had the legal authority to ban DDT if DDT manufacturers promised to put on the label that it couldn't be used for crops.
But two federal courts ordered that EPA use its authority to keep DDT out of agricultural use.
EPA's ban on using DDT on crops was legal, and according to some courts, required. Twice EPA was sued to overturn the ban, since under U.S. law no agency can ban a substance on a whim. The federal courts ruled that there was plenty of evidence that DDT is dangerous -- and that is still so.
Spraying DDT on crops is not "proper use."
EPA's order allowed DDT to be used to fight malaria, and it effectively multiplied the amount of DDT available to fight malaria overseas, since all U.S. production of the stuff was then dedicated to export.
The U.S. "ban" on DDT meant there was a lot more available in Africa and Asia.
Since that time - over 95 million people have died from instect borne disease, most of them African, most of them poor, and most of them women or children under the age of 5.
Few, if any, from a lack of DDT. First, EPA's authority does not affect the rest of the world outside of the U.S. DDT has never been banned in Africa or Asia, even under the 2001 Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty.
Second, DDT has been in continuous use since 1946. For example, India today manufactures and uses tons of DDT -- not that it helps them. DDT's effectiveness was compromised in the 1960s, when agricultural interests overused it. India can't beat its malaria problem today, because DDT doesn't work so well.
When Sri Lanka, under pressure from the greenies banned DDT in 1964,
Didn't happen. Sri Lanka never banned DDT. Environmental groups, like EDF, support the use of DDT in indoor residual spraying to fight malaria. Someone gave you some really bad, false information.
. . . malaria deaths went from 29 to 500,000 in five years.
Sri Lanka ceased its massive anti-malaria campaign because they ran out of money, and there was a war going on, and malaria rates fell very low. DDT was never banned, but it was not so effective as it once had been. Once malaria took hold again -- not a result of a lack of DDT, but a result of a lack of medical care -- it was tough to beat, again.
But DDT was always available to Sri Lanka, had it chosen to use DDT.
Today, malaria in Sri Lanka is dwindling, largely without DDT, because of a continued campaign against the disease.
See Millard Fillmore's Bathtub for more DDT information - accurate stuff.