malaria

Bed Bugs Bite Liberals: Will They Call for DDT?

by Angela Logomasini on August 20, 2010 · 1 comment

in Environment

As bed bugs gnaw on liberal reporters at CNN, perhaps there is a chance some will reconsider their views of DDT. CNN offices apparently have an abundant supply of these annoying and disturbing little creatures.

Before it were banned in 1970′s, DDT helped reduce and eradicate these once common bugs in the United States. But they are back with a vengeance–but DDT is long gone from U.S. markets. Now the bugs are so hard to control that they are infesting cities around the nation–in hotels, homes, and offices.

Yet many people support DDT bans, regardless of the consequences in other countries. Millions of children die every year in developing nations from mosquito-borne illnesses like malaria that could be controlled with limited use of DDT. Yet advocating its increased use there is too politically incorrect for many Americans on the left who wrongly think DDT cannot be used in a safe and effective manner.

But now that the misguided DDT ban has hit home (and the office)–albeit in a much less serious, but very annoying way–will the left reconsider?

The Excellent Powder — DDT

by Angela Logomasini on April 22, 2010

in Odds & Ends

Today, many people celebrate Earth Day, and for most, that simply means enjoying the beauty of the natural world. And what a perfect day it is here in D.C. for going outside! However, Earth Day has less innocuous roots. It is better understood as a political holiday, one that has advanced an anti-progressive ideology–a philosophy has done considerable harm.

That was certainly the message of an event yesterday hosted by Africa Fighting Malaria at the National Press Club. AFM released its new book: The Excellent Powder: DDT’s Political and Scientific History, authored by Donald Roberts, Richard Tren, Roger Bate, and Jennifer Zambone. It tells what amounts to horror story that started around the first Earth Day event, which took place on April 22, 1970.

DDT was originally condemned by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book Silent Spring, which claimed it was dangerous to public health and harmed wildlife. Carson, who is considered the mother of the modern environmental movement, went as far as to categorize it as “an elixir of death.” And her followers echoed those views at the first Earth Day. A brochure published by Environmental Action for the first Earth Day read:

“A disease has infected our country. It has brought smog to Yosemite, dumped garbage in the Hudson, sprayed DDT in our food, and left our cities in decay. Its carrier is man.”

Yet the real disease threatening people was not man-produced technologies like DDT, it was malaria. And this “excellent powder” was a potential solution.

Yet the anti-progressive drumbeat continued against DDT and June14, 1972, it was banned domestically. Many other nations and the World Health Organization would follow suit by discontinuing its use despite the fact that this insecticide was needed to fight malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

According to author, and AFM President, Richard Tren, DDT was “unfairly vilified” and the book attempts to set the record straight, addressing both science and politics. Co-author Don Roberts, Ph.D., concurred, noting that activist campaigns against DDT use have imposed “severe and grievous harm” on poor people in developing countries. Millions have died needlessly because DDT use was drastically curtailed, allowing malaria-carrying mosquitoes to flourish. When DDT was used malaria rates dropped dramatically around the world, and malaria disappeared from many western nations like the United States. After it was discontinued, rates have skyrocketed into the hundreds of millions, particularly in Africa, with several million people dying every year, mostly children under five.

A medical entomologist, Roberts explained that his contribution to the book stems from his decades of research starting in the 1970s regarding malaria and DDT in the field (in developing nations around the world), in the laboratory, and in the literature. He saw first-hand the extraordinary power that DDT had in the 1970s in efforts to control disease outbreaks. On DDT’s health impacts, Roberts explained that it is toxic–but not very. In fact, modern pesticides are hundreds of time more toxic. Yet we find no human deaths from environmental exposures of from them or DDT. DDT posed no health issues even though DDT was used in extremely large qualities in the United States, including in the home. Roberts remembers his mom using it in the kitchen to kill flies.

Roberts’ research eventually showed that DDT had the ability to repel mosquitoes, a fact that is more important than its toxic effects. If used to repel rather than kill mosquitoes, the insect’s resistance to the substance would remain low and DDT could be used long-term to protect humans from deadly mosquitoes.

Tren elaborated on this point during the question and answer portion of the event. He explained that DDT resistance was a problem when it was used in large, toxic doses to protect crops. But the use of relatively small quantities of DDT to repel mosquitoes from homes to prevent malaria poses a very minor threat of resistance. In any case, Tren explained that where resistance exists, it is best combated by constantly introducing new pesticides rather than imposing bans. Unfortunately, in addition to bans, government regulations make it increasingly difficult to get new pesticides on the market. In fact, the number of public health pesticides available is in decline.

Tren’s point about new pesticides brings us full circle. Conservation and public health are laudable goals, but the anti-progressive goals of Earth Day are not. Rather than condemn chemicals or business, we should celebrate the progress that mankind has made in making life healthier and safer. Indeed, human ingenuity and modern technologies should be credited for finding solutions to environmental problems as well as enhancing the human condition. Political approaches taken by modern-day greens have done the opposite.

Not sure what DDT does to birds, but I know how it helps people

by Michael Fumento on November 19, 2009

in Health and Illness, Precaution & Risk

There’s been much in the news lately about the brown pelican being delisted as an endangered species since its recovery from the effects of DDT. I happen to know people whose work I trust who disagree as to whether DDT actually thinned bird eggshells and thus led to declines in various species. That said, all of them are agreed as to the value in saving lives in poor areas – including parts of Africa today.
A poignant reminded comes in Rick Atkinson’s wonderful history of the Italian campaign in World War II, The Day of Battle. He first describes the typhus epidemic in recently-liberated Naples that carried off a fourth of its victims. “Carts hauled away the dead at night, as in medieval times. Typhus, which had killed three million people in Russia and Poland during and after World War I, is spread by lice, and 90 percent of the civilian population in Naples reputedly harbored head lice.”
Then:

Mass delousing was planned for the entire populations, which would be spayed “on the hoof” at fifty “public powdering stations.” Transport planes brought emergency supplies of . . . DDT . . . and eventually sixty tons would be shipped to Italy. At one commandeered palazzo, MPs carrying sacks of the stuff stood by with spray guns . . . . “The men were sprayed from head to foot,” [as one witness described it]. “The women were shot down their bosoms and backs and were sprayed back to front” Other spray teams prowled caves and shelters, and soon the typhus epidemic ended.

Lomborg Strikes Again

by Ryan Young on November 2, 2009

in Global Warming, International

Some people want to cure malaria by reducing carbon emissions. Others want to cure it with mosquito nets, better health care and sanitation. Which is a more effective use of our limited resources? The answer is important; malaria kills about one million people every year. Getting it wrong costs lives.

According to Bjørn Lomborg, “For the money it takes to save one life with carbon cuts, smarter policies could save 78,000 lives. ”

Let’s pursue those smarter policies, then.

Chemical Blacklist Growing

by Angela Logomasini on May 11, 2009

in Environment

Apparently, not only are state lawmakers in Minnesota as noted earlier today blindly banning useful consumer products. International bureaucrats are working on misguided bans as well.

We here at CEI have noted the dangers of ill-advised chemical bans, such as the bans by nations around the world related to the pesticide DDT. Such bans have impeded the battle against malaria-carrying mosquitoes—contributing to millions of deaths every year.

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (known as the POPs Treaty) has already banned 12 chemicals. Among them was DDT. But after public health officials protested an outright ban, the treaty negotiators provided a limited exemption for DDT. It allows some use for malaria control, while imposing bureaucracy that makes use needlessly more difficult.

Now world bureaucrats have added 9 more chemicals to the list of POPs Treaty bans—which will take effect as each nation acts to ratify them.

There isn’t much of any data showing any significant, adverse public health impacts from trace exposures to these chemicals. But there’s lots of evidence that they provide important public health and safety values today. Unfortunately, treaties like this one do not adequately consider the benefits of the products they ban, just theoretical risks.

Accordingly, international negotiators are now going after chemicals that help put out fires, help prevent fires, remove head lice, and make our computers run safely. To add insult to injury, they plan to phase out the limited exemption for DDT—threatening to further undermine the battle against deadly malaria.

For information on the health implications of trace-level chemicals see the chemical risk sections of CEI’s Environmental Source.

(photo source: millenniumpromise’s photostream)