Hurray for DDT!

[thejohngaltline]

I had to read Rachel Carson (the environmentlaist who was essential in the movement to ban the use of DDT and other pesticides in America) for a summer school class this year, and I've been keeping an eye on the controversy over DDT since then. I'm certainly glad to see this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4264374.stm

Finally, someone has recognized that human life is infinitely more valuable than that of a mosquito's. I like what Yaron Brook said about it in a press release from the ARI...

“The environmentalists’ persistent opposition to the use of DDT shows that they are indifferent to human suffering. This is because environmentalism places the ‘preservation’ of nature above the requirements of human survival and prosperity."

Here's to pesticides!

[softwareNerd]

Another article from the BBC says that the WHO has finally reversed its 30-year old policy and backed the use of DDT.

WHO says there is no health risk, and DDT should rank with bednets and drugs as a tool for combating malaria, which kills more than one million each year. "The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment," said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO assistant director-general for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria.

It took these government-funded scientists 30 years! Damn them as we cheer the return of sanity!

[orangesiscool]

I was under the understanding that the real problem with DDT, is that it kill almost all the mosquitoes, an unnatural selection which breeds SUPERMOSQUITOES!!!

By the way:

Is DDT the best solution?

SUPERMOSQUITOES!!!

[KendallJ]

I was under the understanding that the real problem with DDT, is that it kill almost all the mosquitoes, an unnatural selection which breeds SUPERMOSQUITOES!!!

By the way:

Is DDT the best solution?

SUPERMOSQUITOES!!!

Nope. The only kind of "super" in a mosquito spared by DDT spray is one that would be resistant to DDT.

[intellectualammo]

I had to read Rachel Carson...for a summer school class this year...

I had to read Rachel Carson for class this summer, as well. It was titled "The Edge of the Sea". I was going to write a paper on it, but by then I had already been kicked out of the class for a previous essay.

Edited September 16, 2006 by intellectualammo

[DarkWaters]

WHO has finally reversed its 30-year old policy and backed the use of DDT. It took these government-funded scientists 30 years! Damn them as we cheer the return of sanity!

This is fascinating. After reading Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist, I assumed that many scientists were in favor of using DDT as it posed a minor relative risk to humans. However, I guess I was wrong as there must be a nontrivial number of scientific analysts who are in favor of protecting the mosquito population that is surely gingerly holding some unknown food chain in a delicate, unstable equilibrium.

I remember in my high school biology class (this was 1997) we had to write an essay arguing whether or not we should eradicate the domestic mosquito population assuming that we had the technology to do so with surgical precision. The unstated point was that we were supposed to argue against such a measure because it would disrupt some unidentified food chain where the students were to assume that the current mosquito population is a metaphorical keystone and that the consequences would be grave if this natural hierarchy of predatory/prey consumption were to be disrupted in the slightest. I argued that we should eradicate the mosquitos as there would be obvious benefits in prevention of disease (there were cases of West Nile virus recorded in the town next to mine around this time) as well as nuisance and there were no foreseeable consequences. Mosquitos are not pollinating insects and probably any animal that depends on them for sustenance could happily substitute any of the other plentiful insects that are abound in the State of New Jersey (recall that our stated assumption was that we could remove just the mosquitos with surgical precision) as mosquitos seemed to offer no unqiue nutritional benefit. Unfortunately for me, my teacher thought my reasoning was childish and short-sighted. She thought that I obviously had not learned much from our lessons of the ecosystem and gave me a C.

I tend to be pretty sensitive towards the environment but the lesson we were being taught was pretty ridiculous. That being "disrupting the any population of any species is bad because we could topple the food chain. No questions asked."

In all fairness, if we were to eradicate a population of insects, we should investigate if our actions would have any serious repercussions to the environment, especially those that would be detrimental to human beings. But of course, this is just advocating that thought precede action. Any investigation should be objective and in accordance with the scientific method.

If anybody is curious, Dr. Lomborg listed a study (B. Ames and L. Gold "The causes and prevention of cancer: the role of environment." Biotherapy 11:205-220) in his book that showed that the (Human exposure dose/ Rodent Potency dose) HERP of DDT for pre-1972 usage (DDT usage was banned in the U.S. in 1972) is 0.002. The HERP for coffee is 0.10 mainly because of the caffeic acid. In other words, according to this 1998 study, our intake of coffee is about 50 times more carcinogenic than our intake of DDT before it was banned. Alcohol (specifically beer) had a HERP rating of 3.6, which is way above all tested present-day pesticides including ETU, which also has a HERP of 0.002.

Needless to say, these results just pertain to the risk of cancer.

[softwareNerd]

I guess ... there must be a nontrivial number of scientific analysts who are in favor of protecting the mosquito population that is surely gingerly holding some unknown food chain in a delicate, unstable equilibrium.

There's a certain inertia that sets on once a regulation is passed. Undoing regulation is tough, even if someone shows that the underlying raison d'etre is gone.

... She ... gave me a C.

...

In all fairness, if we were to eradicate a population of insects, we should investigate if our actions would have any serious repercussions to the environment, especially those that would be detrimental to human beings. But of course, this is just advocating that thought precede action. Any investigation should be objective and in accordance with the scientific method.

I think that your teacher would have agreed with the second para above. Therefore, she gave you a C for advocating eradication!

To consider the dangers of extinction, we shouldn't speculate; rather, we should start with a question: has any species ever gone extinct, and what were the repercussions.

Edited September 17, 2006 by softwareNerd

[DarkWaters]

To consider the dangers of extinction, we shouldn't speculate; rather, we should start with a question: has any species ever gone extinct, and what were the repercussions.

This is certainly a possibility that has been realized in the past. The first example that I can think of is Mao Ze Dong's Anti-Sparrow campaign during China's ironically titled Great Leap Forward. Evidently, the sparrows were keeping the locust population in check. Chinese crops were devastated by locusts about one year after the sparrow culling.

I would have normally provided a Wikipedia source for this, but I was having trouble finding an entry that has more than one or two paragraphs. I hope that this does not mean that Chinese Communist Revisionists are peer editing Wikipedia against the wishes of Jimmy Wales.

[softwareNerd]

Well, the dinosaurs and mastodons went extinct, and I'm still alive!

This report from Duke, says that "Human activities have caused some 500 bird species worldwide to go extinct over the past 500 years,..." This web site says that in Hawaii alone 24 species of birds, 72 taxa of snails and 74 tax of insects have become extinct. This government website has a short list of some animals that went extinct in mid-west states of the U.S., as does this one.

Since none of that has hurt too bad, and life has constantly improved for humans almost everywhere in the world, I think we have prima facie evidence that species extinction is not something to lose sleep over.

[DarkWaters]

Well, the dinosaurs and mastodons went extinct, and I'm still alive!

This report from Duke, says that "Human activities have caused some 500 bird species worldwide to go extinct over the past 500 years,..." This web site says that in Hawaii alone 24 species of birds, 72 taxa of snails and 74 tax of insects have become extinct. This government website has a short list of some animals that went extinct in mid-west states of the U.S., as does this one.

Since none of that has hurt too bad, and life has constantly improved for humans almost everywhere in the world, I think we have prima facie evidence that species extinction is not something to lose sleep over.

Right, so I assumed that the following was the question that we were going to discuss:

What species were directly eradicated through an intentional human campaign over a short interval of time and what were the adverse effects?

A tactical mosquito elimination would meet the above critera as did Mao's anti-sparrow campaign. I recognize that you clearly did not pose this question, so please allow me to change the locus of discussion.

An interesting note is that one of the projects of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is to fund research that would ineffect cripple the global mosquito population. This entails research funds for anyone who can either generate an olfacticide for mosquitos that would prevent them from being able to detect humans while not adversely effecting pollinating insects or alternatively, engineering a congenital disease for mosquitos that would kill them in the time window after the females reproduce (thus ensuring the propagation of the disease) but before they get old enough to bite humans (incidently, only female mosquitos bite).

With regards to species that went extinct as an unintentional side effect of human endeavors that only indirectly harmed the species, species that are inefficient and unable to sustain themselves will inevitably go extinct even in lack of the presence of man. Of course, exceptions are made if there exists some outside force to assist them. A prime example of this is the vigorous human activity to preserve the panda bear. Digressing again, the panda bear is actually an incredibly inefficient animal. It is enormous but a fussy eater and merely a vegetarian. It has an incredibly long gestation period. It is an animal that prefers a life of solitude and has a very limited sex drive. It certainly does not blend in with its environment at all. They are pretty stupid as panda mothers are always inadvertantly crushing their cubs. Et cetera, et cetera.

A similar question that would be interesting to explore is the potential dangers of introducing an invasive species into an environment where there would be no natural predators. Several examples of this, where the non-indigenous species have become a nuisance if not also economically detrimental to agribusiness or even an epidemiological threat, include the introduction of kudzu in the eastern United States, the introduction of cane toads in Australia, the introduction of European rabbits in Australia and the introduction of the Indian mongoose in Hawaii.

[DavidOdden]

Let's see... the dodo has gone extinct; the repercussions were the creation of a class of "dead as a dodo" comments. Wooly mammoths went extinct, resulting is less hair to clean up. Variola vera seems to be extinct, and the repercussions seem to be vastly fewer human deaths, which is generally considered to be a good thing except by environmentalists. The passenger pigeon is extinct: I don't think anyone has actually noticed, except to make comments in textbooks about the passenger pigeon being extinct. The extinction of the Ivory Bill Woodpecker is somewhat more significant, since it was a remarkable-looking bird and I would be happy to actually see one in the flesh (maybe riding on the back of a Wooly Mammoth), but que sera and all. I would be more concerned with cod going extinct, but that just will not happen.

There's little serious doubt that people can make blunders -- cane toads, kudzu, Australo-bunnies, Hawaiian mongeese, also snails in Vietnam, nutria in Louisiana and Nile Perch in Lake Victoria. As far as I know, all of these involved hasty decisions or inadequate scientific knowledge or precautions. What's interesting about these cases is, what were the exact errors, from a rational perspective? For instance, if you plan to introduce an alien species for the purpose of controling pests, what exactly should you know or check out in advance before you do so? In the context of modern knowledge, introducing cane toads as a form of pest control would be highly irresponsible -- this is now, and that was then. I think maybe the rice-eating snails of Vietnam, which were introduced only recently, would be irresponsible behavior.

BTW I assume people are aware that DDT was banned not because of an effect on mosquitoes which could all die as far as I'm concerned, but because of a supposed direct effect on birds (putative eggshell thinning).

[DarkWaters]

The extinction of the Ivory Bill Woodpecker is somewhat more significant, since it was a remarkable-looking bird and I would be happy to actually see one in the flesh (maybe riding on the back of a Wooly Mammoth)

Now you have the chance, except for perhaps witnessing one in the woolly mammoth mahout pose. The ivory-billed woodpecker was rediscovered in all its glory back in 2005. You should still be able to see one somewhere, unless if they went extinct again.

BTW I assume people are aware that DDT was banned not because of an effect on mosquitoes which could all die as far as I'm concerned, but because of a supposed direct effect on birds (putative eggshell thinning).

Your assumption is correct, at least with me. Although I would truly relish to witness some hippie try to awkwardly balance the argument of wanting to ban the usage of DDT because, while having the benefit of destroying some insects that are virulent for crops (thus protecting the "rights" of the insentient crops), it would infringe of the rights on the mosquitos who have not initiated any force on the noble vegetation.

Edited September 17, 2006 by DarkWaters

[Inspector]

BTW I assume people are aware that DDT was banned not because of an effect on mosquitoes which could all die as far as I'm concerned, but because of a supposed direct effect on birds (putative eggshell thinning).

An effect which has since been proven to be a myth. And to be perfectly frank, the government official who enacted the ban publicly stated that he deliberately ignored the scientific evidence in order to follow the ideology of environmentalism. Junk Science has his statements on record.

[intellectualammo]

It should be noted that WHO supports DDT for home or indoor use only and not for outside or agricultural use. Here is a recent article.

Edited September 20, 2006 by intellectualammo

[Constans Augustus]

I always broke out laughing whenever Bono would cry out for more nets to combat Malaryia. Last I checked, we were no longer in the 19th century.

[intellectualammo]

Here is an op-ed that was just put up on the ARI's website that was written by Keith Lockitch and titled, Rachel Carson's Genocide

Edited May 24, 2007 by intellectualammo